Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96001 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.