Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a notice under section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 seeking payment from a bank holding funds on behalf of a company whose name has changed is valid where the company has merely changed its name under section 11(5) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
Analysis: The Court examined the effect of a company's change of name under section 11(3) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and observed that a change of name does not create a new juristic person but merely alters the label of the same corporate entity; consequently all rights, obligations and property of the company continue to be those of the same company under its new name. Section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 authorises the Income-tax Officer to require any person who holds money for or on account of the assessee to pay specified sums to the Officer, and, on failure, to treat the notice as having the same effect as an attachment under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 46. The key factual and legal question was whether the bank held funds for the assessee (the company which formerly bore the old name). Given that assets held by the bank were assets of the same corporate entity now carrying a new name, the notice under section 46(5A) was properly addressed to the bank to realise the assessed tax.
Conclusion: In favour of Revenue.