Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The provisions of the IBC 2016 would prevail over the Income Tax Act 1961. Income Tax authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of Income Tax dues but have no authority to initiate recovery of such dues during the moratorium period under IBC. Income Tax Authorities are like creditors and may stake their claim before the liquidator or adjudicatory authority within the statutory limitation period under the waterfall mechanism of IBC. However, they are not barred from determining the tax dues for staking claims. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue on merit regarding determination of tax dues, despite the pendency of liquidation process. The case deserves to be restored to CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The provisions of the IBC 2016 would prevail over the Income Tax Act 1961. Income Tax authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of Income Tax dues but have no authority to initiate recovery of such dues during the moratorium period under IBC. Income Tax Authorities are like creditors and may stake their claim before the liquidator or adjudicatory authority within the statutory limitation period under the waterfall mechanism of IBC. However, they are not barred from determining the tax dues for staking claims. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue on merit regarding determination of tax dues, despite the pendency of liquidation process. The case deserves to be restored to CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
