Appeal allows marketing payments as deductible business expenses under Sec.37; director pay retained; R&D deductible from certificate date under Sec.3...
Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
The HC held that the attachment and mutation effected by the revenue authority over immovable property belonging to an HUF, previously leased to a company with outstanding tax liabilities, was unlawful. The court quashed and set aside the mutation/attachment effected in favour of the State and directed withdrawal of the encumbrance, ruling that leasehold occupation by the company did not convert ownership or permit recovery of the company's VAT dues from the HUF's property merely because some HUF members were directors of the company. The petition was allowed and disposed of, with clarification that the HUF's property cannot be marshalled to satisfy the company's tax liability absent distinct personal liability of the directors.
The HC held that the attachment and mutation effected by the revenue authority over immovable property belonging to an HUF, previously leased to a company with outstanding tax liabilities, was unlawful. The court quashed and set aside the mutation/attachment effected in favour of the State and directed withdrawal of the encumbrance, ruling that leasehold occupation by the company did not convert ownership or permit recovery of the company's VAT dues from the HUF's property merely because some HUF members were directors of the company. The petition was allowed and disposed of, with clarification that the HUF's property cannot be marshalled to satisfy the company's tax liability absent distinct personal liability of the directors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
