Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT affirms that alleged collusion between bank officials and the directors of the company is not foreclosed and must be adjudicated by the Special Judge, PMLA, in the trial court. The AT holds that where two statutes conflict, the later enactment prevails absent a saving clause. The liquidator of the company is granted leave to move the Special Judge, PMLA, under section 8(7) of the PMLA for permission to auction the specified property to satisfy the consortium of banks and other creditors; the liquidator must undertake to deposit any surplus realisation in an FDR with the Respondent and the Special Judge will adjudicate its disposal after conclusion of the PMLA trial. Appeal dismissed.
The AT affirms that alleged collusion between bank officials and the directors of the company is not foreclosed and must be adjudicated by the Special Judge, PMLA, in the trial court. The AT holds that where two statutes conflict, the later enactment prevails absent a saving clause. The liquidator of the company is granted leave to move the Special Judge, PMLA, under section 8(7) of the PMLA for permission to auction the specified property to satisfy the consortium of banks and other creditors; the liquidator must undertake to deposit any surplus realisation in an FDR with the Respondent and the Special Judge will adjudicate its disposal after conclusion of the PMLA trial. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
