Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
