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...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
