Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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.