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 ...
The High Court addressed the validity of a show cause notice (SCN) and final order issued against a non-existent entity, the rectification of procedural defects, and the applicability of Sections 160 and 87 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning amalgamated companies. Section 87 seeks to preserve and identify transactions between companies that ultimately amalgamate, fixing liabilities under the CGST Act. However, it cannot enable issuing notices or orders against a non-existent entity, as the liabilities would transpose to the amalgamated entity. Consequently, the impugned SCN and order were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
The High Court addressed the validity of a show cause notice (SCN) and final order issued against a non-existent entity, the rectification of procedural defects, and the applicability of Sections 160 and 87 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning amalgamated companies. Section 87 seeks to preserve and identify transactions between companies that ultimately amalgamate, fixing liabilities under the CGST Act. However, it cannot enable issuing notices or orders against a non-existent entity, as the liabilities would transpose to the amalgamated entity. Consequently, the impugned SCN and order were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
