Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 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 dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned NCLT order did not effect a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s.5(1); instead it merely restrained the Appellants from mortgaging, creating charges or otherwise alienating movable or immovable assets. The Tribunal found no narration or direction constituting attachment, and no provision under the IBC or Companies Act empowering NCLT to attach the properties. Because the restraint served only to preserve third-party interests pending NCLT proceedings and did not amount to provisional attachment intended to secure proceeds of crime for eventual settlement, there was no merit to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal disposed of.
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned NCLT order did not effect a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s.5(1); instead it merely restrained the Appellants from mortgaging, creating charges or otherwise alienating movable or immovable assets. The Tribunal found no narration or direction constituting attachment, and no provision under the IBC or Companies Act empowering NCLT to attach the properties. Because the restraint served only to preserve third-party interests pending NCLT proceedings and did not amount to provisional attachment intended to secure proceeds of crime for eventual settlement, there was no merit to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
