Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
The High Court ruled that security interests over assets of a corporate debtor to secure amounts due under a judgment or decree must give way to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The IBC governs insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, which may lead to an approved resolution plan or liquidation. The interplay between rights of a judgment creditor and implications of insolvency law as existed earlier cannot apply when the IBC governs the field. The court clarified that a previous ruling releasing funds deposited by a corporate debtor to a judgment creditor is limited to that case, as the Supreme Court has conclusively released the ICICI Guarantee in the present case based on similar pleadings. Considering the IBC provisions and their implications for decree holders, the monies deposited by the corporate debtor appellant constitute its assets, though not in its possession. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal and the amounts deposited, along with accrued earnings, as continuing with the deposit serves no meaningful purpose given the IBC's waterfall mechanism for distribution in liquidation proceedings.
The High Court ruled that security interests over assets of a corporate debtor to secure amounts due under a judgment or decree must give way to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The IBC governs insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, which may lead to an approved resolution plan or liquidation. The interplay between rights of a judgment creditor and implications of insolvency law as existed earlier cannot apply when the IBC governs the field. The court clarified that a previous ruling releasing funds deposited by a corporate debtor to a judgment creditor is limited to that case, as the Supreme Court has conclusively released the ICICI Guarantee in the present case based on similar pleadings. Considering the IBC provisions and their implications for decree holders, the monies deposited by the corporate debtor appellant constitute its assets, though not in its possession. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the appeal and the amounts deposited, along with accrued earnings, as continuing with the deposit serves no meaningful purpose given the IBC's waterfall mechanism for distribution in liquidation proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
