Section 36(2)(i) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 36(2)(i), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
DCIT, Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai v Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd
ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
The Approving Panel held that my client's arrangement is NOT an impermissible avoidance arrangement, but the Assessing Officer has taxed the same transaction under another section anyway. Can he do that?
The Mumbai Tribunal did not decide the wide question, but it held that the Assessing Officer could not, while giving effect to the statutory process under section 144BA, proceed on a factual premise diametrically opposed to the findings returned by the Approving Panel on the very arrangement referred to it. It then dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the narrower ground that a company buying back its own shares, which must then be extinguished, does not 'receive' property within section 56(2)(x) at all.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.