Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
HC held assessment orders passed in name of amalgamating companies void ab initio, despite participation of amalgamated company (RIL) in proceedings. Revenue authorities had prior knowledge of amalgamation yet issued orders against non-existent entities. Following Maruti Suzuki precedent, court determined that once amalgamation is effective, proceedings must be conducted against amalgamated entity. Mere participation by amalgamated company cannot validate assessment orders issued to defunct amalgamating companies. Assessment order dated March 27, 1997, declared legally void, ruling in assessee's favor. Principle affirmed that post-merger assessments must be pursued against surviving amalgamated entity exclusively.
HC held assessment orders passed in name of amalgamating companies void ab initio, despite participation of amalgamated company (RIL) in proceedings. Revenue authorities had prior knowledge of amalgamation yet issued orders against non-existent entities. Following Maruti Suzuki precedent, court determined that once amalgamation is effective, proceedings must be conducted against amalgamated entity. Mere participation by amalgamated company cannot validate assessment orders issued to defunct amalgamating companies. Assessment order dated March 27, 1997, declared legally void, ruling in assessee's favor. Principle affirmed that post-merger assessments must be pursued against surviving amalgamated entity exclusively.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
