Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
An adjustment under section 143(1)(a) disallowing employees' provident fund contribution was impermissible because, on the date of intimation, the issue was debatable and governed by binding jurisdictional High Court precedent favouring the assessee. The Tribunal held that CPC must test the legality of a prima facie adjustment with reference to the law prevailing at that time, and a later Supreme Court ruling could not justify the adjustment retrospectively. Reliance on a non-jurisdictional High Court decision did not override the prevailing jurisdictional position. The disallowance was deleted and the assessee's claim was allowed.
An adjustment under section 143(1)(a) disallowing employees' provident fund contribution was impermissible because, on the date of intimation, the issue was debatable and governed by binding jurisdictional High Court precedent favouring the assessee. The Tribunal held that CPC must test the legality of a prima facie adjustment with reference to the law prevailing at that time, and a later Supreme Court ruling could not justify the adjustment retrospectively. Reliance on a non-jurisdictional High Court decision did not override the prevailing jurisdictional position. The disallowance was deleted and the assessee's claim was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
