Search Results for "bonus shares"

35 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 35 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Appeals of Shareholders in Capital Receipt Case — One Million Euros Received from Vedior NV Held Exempt as Capital Receipt. Compensation for Loss of Right of First Refusal and Non-Compete Agreement Treated as Capital Receipt Not Chargeable to Tax Under Income Tax Act, 1961.

The case involves two appeals by shareholders (K. Pandiarajan and R. Hemalatha) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which up...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Cooperative Housing Society's Challenge to Labour Court and Gratuity Proceedings. Ex-Manager's Claims Under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act and Payment of Gratuity Act Dismissed as Society is Neither an 'Industry' Nor an 'Establishment'.

The Petitioner, Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., is a cooperative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Clarifies SEBI's Jurisdiction in Investor Compensation Claims Under Securities Law. SEBI Lacks Power to Award Direct Compensation but Can Order Disgorgement of Ill-Gotten Gains for Restitution Under Sections 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

The dispute originated in 2005 when the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a show-cause notice to M/s. Vital Communications Limited ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Consumer Protection Case, Reversing NCDRC's Dismissal on Consumer Status. Overdraft Facility Availed by Stockbroker for Business Qualifies as Consumer Service Under Exception for Self-Employment Livelihood in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissing a consumer complaint on the ground that the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Expulsion of Trading Member for Violating Gross Exposure Limits and Failing to Maintain Capital Adequacy. Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 - Section 22F - Appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal order upholding expulsion from National Stock Exchange membership.

The appellant, Rusoday Securities Ltd., was a trading member of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) since November 1994 and gave an undert...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Rules Share Issue Expenses to Dilute Foreign Equity as Capital Expenditure Under Income Tax Act, 1961. Interest on Share Application Money Cannot Be Adjusted Against Such Capital Expenditure.

The case involves an Income Tax Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) at the ins...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notices Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09 Due to Lack of Failure to Disclose Material Facts and Change of Opinion. Remuneration Paid to Directors Was Fully Disclosed and Examined During Original Assessment, So Reopening Invalid.

The petitioner, M/s. OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., a share and stock broker, challenged notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reope...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Winding-Up Petition as Foreign Company Failed to Comply with Registration Requirements Under Sections 592 and 599 of Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner, a foreign company with a place of business in India, cannot maintain a winding-up petition without registering under the Act.

The petitioner, Willis Europe B.V., a company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands with its principal place of business in the United Kingdo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Restoration of Criminal Complaint in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Non-Compliance with Conditional Order. Petitioner's right to prosecute respondent for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 revived after respondent failed to deposit amount as directed.

The petitioner, Anil Prabhakar Naik, filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondents for ...