https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215552 Delay and laches barred the writ challenge because the petition was filed nearly eleven months after the AAIFR order without a satisfactory explanation; administrative processing and governmental approvals were held insufficient for delayed litigation. On the merits, amendment of Section 72A of the Income-tax Act did not impliedly extinguish the express power preserved by Section 32(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. The BIFR remained competent, while sanctioning an amalgamation scheme, to direct inclusion of the Section 72A tax benefit in the rehabilitation scheme without the earlier recommendation procedure. The statutory scheme and prior Supreme Court authority supported that approach. en-us Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215552 Delay and laches barred the writ challenge because the petition was filed nearly eleven months after the AAIFR order without a satisfactory explanation; administrative processing and governmental approvals were held insufficient for delayed litigation. On the merits, amendment of Section 72A of the Income-tax Act did not impliedly extinguish the express power preserved by Section 32(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act. The BIFR remained competent, while sanctioning an amalgamation scheme, to direct inclusion of the Section 72A tax benefit in the rehabilitation scheme without the earlier recommendation procedure. The statutory scheme and prior Supreme Court authority supported that approach. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215552