Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
Respondent M/s Vedanta Limited [Vedanta] is the resultant entity after M/s Cairn India Limited [Cairn] amalgamated with it. The TPO and AO inadvertently made the draft assessment order in the name of the non-existent Cairn instead of Vedanta, despite being apprised of the merger. The HC held that framing an order against a non-existent entity is a fatal flaw which cannot be rectified u/s 292B or Section 154 of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki. The facts were distinguished from Sky Light, where the assessee's conduct led the SC to uphold the assessment despite being in the name of a non-existent entity. The HC found no merit in the revenue's argument and decided against it.
Respondent M/s Vedanta Limited [Vedanta] is the resultant entity after M/s Cairn India Limited [Cairn] amalgamated with it. The TPO and AO inadvertently made the draft assessment order in the name of the non-existent Cairn instead of Vedanta, despite being apprised of the merger. The HC held that framing an order against a non-existent entity is a fatal flaw which cannot be rectified u/s 292B or Section 154 of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki. The facts were distinguished from Sky Light, where the assessee's conduct led the SC to uphold the assessment despite being in the name of a non-existent entity. The HC found no merit in the revenue's argument and decided against it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
