Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The case pertains to the validity of an assessment order against a company that had already undergone amalgamation. The key points are: The assessment order was passed on a non-existent company, as it had been amalgamated. However, in an amalgamation, the corporate entity continues within the transferee company, unlike winding up where it ceases to exist. The Supreme Court has held that the business and venture live on within the new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee company. Therefore, the liability continues to be shouldered by the transferee company. The transferor company had filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) after the merger, indicating knowledge of the liability. A notice was issued to the assessee at its Chennai address, but there was no response. The AO proceeded with the assessment as the ITAT had remitted the matter back. While the assessment order cannot be deemed a nullity, the rejection of the long-term capital gain claim without an effective hearing to the transferee company renders the order invalid to that extent. The decision was in favor of the revenue.
The case pertains to the validity of an assessment order against a company that had already undergone amalgamation. The key points are: The assessment order was passed on a non-existent company, as it had been amalgamated. However, in an amalgamation, the corporate entity continues within the transferee company, unlike winding up where it ceases to exist. The Supreme Court has held that the business and venture live on within the new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee company. Therefore, the liability continues to be shouldered by the transferee company. The transferor company had filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) after the merger, indicating knowledge of the liability. A notice was issued to the assessee at its Chennai address, but there was no response. The AO proceeded with the assessment as the ITAT had remitted the matter back. While the assessment order cannot be deemed a nullity, the rejection of the long-term capital gain claim without an effective hearing to the transferee company renders the order invalid to that extent. The decision was in favor of the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.