Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 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 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
