Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (1.15 seconds)
Madhav Infra Projects Ltd (Erstwhile ... vs The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad on 28 June, 2024 cites

C.I.T New Delhi vs M/S Spice Enfotainment Ltd. on 2 November, 2017

7.7.1 The appellant has claimed that ACPL informed the AO vide letter dated 13.10.2012 about the amalgamation and also enclosed a copy of order of Gujarat High Court dated 25.07.2012. In the said letter it is seen that the appellant has merely informed that "it had filed papers to High Court for amalgamation with another company and appointed date has been fixed as 1 April 2010". This letter presumed approval of the Scheme of amalgamation by the Gujarat HC and cannot be given cognizance to. The copy of Gujarat HC adduced, in fact only accepted the plea for admission of the scheme of amalgamation and notices were issued for further action and case was fixed for hearing on 30.08.2012. AO could not have been expected to presume and prejudge the Gujarat High Court order. In submission during appeal proceedings the appellant has stated that it was not filing Return of Income from A. Y. 2011- 12 and onwards. This intimation does not in any way help the case of the appellant and distinguishable from the Spice Infotainment case where after the scheme 13 ITA No. 88/Ahd/2023 Madhav Infra Projects Ltd Vs. the Dy. CIT AY : 2009-10 was approved by the Delhi HC, the assessee intimated the AO especially after notice u/s 143(2) was issued to it. The AO has reported that as per records available, no communication was made by the assessee regarding the amalgamation during re- assessment proceedings for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010- 11. Post, the Gujarat HC approving the Amalgamation Scheme, the appellant did not at all communicate with the AO. The appellant stopped filing Return of Income from AY 2011-12 onwards on its own volition despite the fact that on the due dates of filing the returns for those AYs, scheme of amalgamation was not approved. Hence the ratio of the case M/s Spice Entertainment is not applicable in this case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 41 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next