Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
The High Court held that the reopening notice issued u/s 148 against a non-existent entity, i.e., the amalgamating company that had ceased to exist due to an approved scheme of amalgamation, was invalid and illegal. Despite being informed about the amalgamation, the Assessing Officer issued the jurisdictional notice solely in the name of the amalgamating company, which was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. The appellant's participation in the proceedings cannot operate as an estoppel against law. The Assessing Officer lacked legal basis and jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice u/s 148A(b), pass an order thereon, and further issue the impugned notice u/s 148 to a non-existing entity. Such notices were illegal, invalid, and non-est from the outset. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the reopening notice issued u/s 148 against a non-existent entity, i.e., the amalgamating company that had ceased to exist due to an approved scheme of amalgamation, was invalid and illegal. Despite being informed about the amalgamation, the Assessing Officer issued the jurisdictional notice solely in the name of the amalgamating company, which was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. The appellant's participation in the proceedings cannot operate as an estoppel against law. The Assessing Officer lacked legal basis and jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice u/s 148A(b), pass an order thereon, and further issue the impugned notice u/s 148 to a non-existing entity. Such notices were illegal, invalid, and non-est from the outset. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
