<?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>2026 (3) TMI 138 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787383</link>
    <description>Notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a non-existing transferor company after merger are invalid because they are addressed to an entity that no longer exists. The Bombay High Court held that an order passed in the name of the transferor, rather than the transferee company, is bad in law. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that judgment in special leave proceedings, and the interlocutory applications were disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 08:42:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 138 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787383</link>
      <description>Notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a non-existing transferor company after merger are invalid because they are addressed to an entity that no longer exists. The Bombay High Court held that an order passed in the name of the transferor, rather than the transferee company, is bad in law. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that judgment in special leave proceedings, and the interlocutory applications were disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>