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 AT set aside provisional attachment orders under money laundering proceedings against two appellants who had obtained independent loans from Syndicate Bank totaling Rs. 4.08 crores and Rs. 4.98 crores for purchasing office units. The respondent erroneously treated these loan amounts as proceeds of crime despite the loans being unconnected to the underlying fraud scheme involving forged cheques and fictitious LIC policies. The appellants had fully repaid the loans with proper NOCs issued by the bank. The AT found that professional fees received by one appellant were legitimately disclosed in ITR and service tax returns prior to the FIR. The respondent failed to justify expanding the case scope beyond original FIR allegations, particularly when banks like IDBI, DHFL, and UCO had issued NOCs confirming loan repayments. Both appeals were allowed.
The AT set aside provisional attachment orders under money laundering proceedings against two appellants who had obtained independent loans from Syndicate Bank totaling Rs. 4.08 crores and Rs. 4.98 crores for purchasing office units. The respondent erroneously treated these loan amounts as proceeds of crime despite the loans being unconnected to the underlying fraud scheme involving forged cheques and fictitious LIC policies. The appellants had fully repaid the loans with proper NOCs issued by the bank. The AT found that professional fees received by one appellant were legitimately disclosed in ITR and service tax returns prior to the FIR. The respondent failed to justify expanding the case scope beyond original FIR allegations, particularly when banks like IDBI, DHFL, and UCO had issued NOCs confirming loan repayments. Both appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
