Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Proceedings based on a show cause notice issued to a company that had already merged and ceased to exist are without jurisdiction, because a notice to a non-existent amalgamating entity cannot validly found recovery action. The note applies the principle from Maruti Suzuki and later Bombay HC decisions, stating that where the merger and dissolution were undisputed and communicated to the department, the consequential adjudication is void ab initio. It also records that merger provisions do not authorise notice to a post-merger non-existent entity, while leaving the tax demand open for any fresh proceedings otherwise permissible.
Proceedings based on a show cause notice issued to a company that had already merged and ceased to exist are without jurisdiction, because a notice to a non-existent amalgamating entity cannot validly found recovery action. The note applies the principle from Maruti Suzuki and later Bombay HC decisions, stating that where the merger and dissolution were undisputed and communicated to the department, the consequential adjudication is void ab initio. It also records that merger provisions do not authorise notice to a post-merger non-existent entity, while leaving the tax demand open for any fresh proceedings otherwise permissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.