Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Disciplinary proportionality requires penalties for Authorised Representative misconduct to match proven harm, leading to reconsideration of registrat...
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 4918 
