Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95794 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.