9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav AOR. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. H R Rao, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Sundeep Pandhi, Adv. Mr. Vijaynand Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vivasvan Gautam, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. (Not present) Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Ms. Ruchi Krishna Chauhan, Adv. ORDER Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the scheme shows that according to the scheme, the entire undertaking of the Subsidiary Company shall be transferred to the Holding Company with effect from the transferred date and that the Subsidiary Company shall be amalgamated with the Holding Company with effect from the said date. Clause (6) states clearly that the implementation of the said scheme "is conditional upon the scheme being s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the sub-clauses. The High Court has opined that the transfer date mentioned in the scheme viz., January 1, 1982 is "totally artificial and arbitrary" [for the reason that on the said date neither the company nor their shareholders had even thought of amalgamation] and that it has no legal significance. According to the High Court, therefore, the date on which the amalgamation should be deemed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held the validity of the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer, which notices were impugned in the writ petition, and dismissed the writ petition. The question is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct." Shri N Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue is not in a position to point out any contrary decision of this Court taking a contrary view than the view tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
