Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The judgment addresses the applicability of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) concerning the recovery of tax dues from the successful resolution applicant who acquired the assets of the corporate debtor. The court held that once the petitioner acquired the assets through the auction process under IBC, any claims not raised earlier stand extinguished. The respondent cannot recover dues pertaining to the period prior to the petitioner's acquisition. Section 31 mandates that the approved resolution plan binds all stakeholders, including government authorities. The retrospective applicability of the 2019 amendment to Section 31, upheld by the Supreme Court, reinforces this position. The IBC aims to revive the corporate debtor, and the approved resolution plan must provide for payment of insolvency costs. Consequently, the demand notice issued by the respondent seeking pre-acquisition dues is arbitrary, violating Article 14, and the petitioner is not liable for outstanding tax dues prior to asset acquisition under IBC.
The judgment addresses the applicability of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) concerning the recovery of tax dues from the successful resolution applicant who acquired the assets of the corporate debtor. The court held that once the petitioner acquired the assets through the auction process under IBC, any claims not raised earlier stand extinguished. The respondent cannot recover dues pertaining to the period prior to the petitioner's acquisition. Section 31 mandates that the approved resolution plan binds all stakeholders, including government authorities. The retrospective applicability of the 2019 amendment to Section 31, upheld by the Supreme Court, reinforces this position. The IBC aims to revive the corporate debtor, and the approved resolution plan must provide for payment of insolvency costs. Consequently, the demand notice issued by the respondent seeking pre-acquisition dues is arbitrary, violating Article 14, and the petitioner is not liable for outstanding tax dues prior to asset acquisition under IBC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
