<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (6) TMI 1096 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467961</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after finding that the requisite corporate approvals were obtained and compliance affidavits were filed. Limited objections by the Regional Director on tax treatment and future modification were met by undertakings that tax consequences would be dealt with according to law and that no modification would be made without leave of the Court. The Official Liquidator reported proper conduct of the transferor company&#039;s affairs, and the lone unsecured creditor&#039;s objection did not displace the scheme. The Court found the scheme fair, reasonable, lawful, and not prejudicial to shareholders, creditors, or public interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 16:30:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 1096 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467961</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 after finding that the requisite corporate approvals were obtained and compliance affidavits were filed. Limited objections by the Regional Director on tax treatment and future modification were met by undertakings that tax consequences would be dealt with according to law and that no modification would be made without leave of the Court. The Official Liquidator reported proper conduct of the transferor company&#039;s affairs, and the lone unsecured creditor&#039;s objection did not displace the scheme. The Court found the scheme fair, reasonable, lawful, and not prejudicial to shareholders, creditors, or public interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>