Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Validity of reassessment proceedings against non-existent entities or amalgamating companies. The key points are: 1) Initiating or continuing proceedings against a dissolved company or one that no longer exists in law would invalidate the proceedings. 2) Once a Scheme of Arrangement is approved, the transferor companies are dissolved by operation of law, and proceedings drawn in their name would be a nullity. 3) Sections 159 and 170 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. 4) Invoking Section 154 for rectification to overcome a jurisdictional error is not permissible. 5) Issuing notices u/s 142(1) bearing the PAN of the erstwhile entity, though a mistake, is not a fundamental flaw or incurable illegality. 6) Failure to apprise the authorities about the approved Scheme of Arrangement renders the proceedings valid. 7) The High Court dismissed petitions where disclosures about the Scheme were not made during assessment proceedings.
Validity of reassessment proceedings against non-existent entities or amalgamating companies. The key points are: 1) Initiating or continuing proceedings against a dissolved company or one that no longer exists in law would invalidate the proceedings. 2) Once a Scheme of Arrangement is approved, the transferor companies are dissolved by operation of law, and proceedings drawn in their name would be a nullity. 3) Sections 159 and 170 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. 4) Invoking Section 154 for rectification to overcome a jurisdictional error is not permissible. 5) Issuing notices u/s 142(1) bearing the PAN of the erstwhile entity, though a mistake, is not a fundamental flaw or incurable illegality. 6) Failure to apprise the authorities about the approved Scheme of Arrangement renders the proceedings valid. 7) The High Court dismissed petitions where disclosures about the Scheme were not made during assessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
