Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Proceedings initiated, continued and concluded against an amalgamating company after it ceased to exist are unsustainable. Although liabilities, existing claims and pending proceedings devolve on the transferee under an amalgamation scheme, post-amalgamation proceedings concerning earlier liabilities must be instituted against the successor company. Reference to, knowledge of, or participation by the successor does not cure proceedings conducted in the name of the non-existent entity, particularly where the order does not address the disclosed amalgamation. The successor has locus to challenge such proceedings because any resulting liability may be fastened upon it. The HC quashed the show cause notice and adjudication order, while leaving merits open and permitting fresh lawful proceedings against the successor.
Proceedings initiated, continued and concluded against an amalgamating company after it ceased to exist are unsustainable. Although liabilities, existing claims and pending proceedings devolve on the transferee under an amalgamation scheme, post-amalgamation proceedings concerning earlier liabilities must be instituted against the successor company. Reference to, knowledge of, or participation by the successor does not cure proceedings conducted in the name of the non-existent entity, particularly where the order does not address the disclosed amalgamation. The successor has locus to challenge such proceedings because any resulting liability may be fastened upon it. The HC quashed the show cause notice and adjudication order, while leaving merits open and permitting fresh lawful proceedings against the successor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
