Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
A company sold as a going concern in liquidation was treated as acquired on a clean slate basis, so past liabilities and investigations stood extinguished under the insolvency framework. The High Court applied the settled principle from insolvency sale jurisprudence and held that reopening could not proceed on that footing. It also found the reassessment to be based on an unverified assumption that interest deduction might have been claimed, despite the company's explanation that no such deduction was taken and the matter was verifiable from the accounts. As the AO acted on surmises rather than examined material, the notice and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.
A company sold as a going concern in liquidation was treated as acquired on a clean slate basis, so past liabilities and investigations stood extinguished under the insolvency framework. The High Court applied the settled principle from insolvency sale jurisprudence and held that reopening could not proceed on that footing. It also found the reassessment to be based on an unverified assumption that interest deduction might have been claimed, despite the company's explanation that no such deduction was taken and the matter was verifiable from the accounts. As the AO acted on surmises rather than examined material, the notice and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
