https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215075 A scheme of demerger and vesting of passive infrastructure assets was held not to qualify as an arrangement or reconstruction under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 because restructuring of assets is not the same as reconstruction of a company; the continuity test was not met where the passive infrastructure business was separated from the telecom services business and the transferee was to merge with an independent entity. The proposal also lacked consideration and was treated as resembling a gift, placing it outside the statutory concept of arrangement. Objections based on tax avoidance, public interest, ultra vires action and other legal infirmities were upheld, and sanction was refused. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2013 15:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215075 A scheme of demerger and vesting of passive infrastructure assets was held not to qualify as an arrangement or reconstruction under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 because restructuring of assets is not the same as reconstruction of a company; the continuity test was not met where the passive infrastructure business was separated from the telecom services business and the transferee was to merge with an independent entity. The proposal also lacked consideration and was treated as resembling a gift, placing it outside the statutory concept of arrangement. Objections based on tax avoidance, public interest, ultra vires action and other legal infirmities were upheld, and sanction was refused. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215075