<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (2) TMI 66 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16123</link>
    <description>The court held that the amalgamated company could be held liable for the tax liability of the amalgamating company under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even after amalgamation and dissolution. The court emphasized that the amalgamated company, having taken over all obligations, was responsible for the tax liability arising from the amalgamating company&#039;s failure to distribute profits. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing the enforcement of the tax order against the amalgamated company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 66 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16123</link>
      <description>The court held that the amalgamated company could be held liable for the tax liability of the amalgamating company under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even after amalgamation and dissolution. The court emphasized that the amalgamated company, having taken over all obligations, was responsible for the tax liability arising from the amalgamating company&#039;s failure to distribute profits. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing the enforcement of the tax order against the amalgamated company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>