Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.