Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the transfer of divisions to two companies did not constitute a 'demerger' under Section 72A(4) of the IT Act. The court confirmed that for Section 72A(4) to apply, there must be a transfer of all assets and liabilities of the division to the resulting company, and consideration must be paid by share issuance to the shareholders of the demerged company. Here, only specified assets and liabilities were transferred, and consideration was paid in cash, approved under company law. Consequently, carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was permitted, and no substantial question of law arose.
The HC upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the transfer of divisions to two companies did not constitute a 'demerger' under Section 72A(4) of the IT Act. The court confirmed that for Section 72A(4) to apply, there must be a transfer of all assets and liabilities of the division to the resulting company, and consideration must be paid by share issuance to the shareholders of the demerged company. Here, only specified assets and liabilities were transferred, and consideration was paid in cash, approved under company law. Consequently, carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation was permitted, and no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
