Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
The dominant issues were whether CBDT instructions could override the Benami Act, 1988 and whether the 2016 amendments were inapplicable where the initial transfer pre-dated the amendment but the property continued to be held thereafter. It was held that CBDT instructions were administrative and did not control or dilute statutory powers; the Initiating Officer validly exercised authority to provisionally attach property under the 1988 Act, hence the challenge failed. It was further held that excluding amended provisions merely because the initial transfer occurred earlier, despite continued holding post-amendment, would impermissibly rewrite the 2016 amendments; hence the amended regime applied. On facts, the property was found to be benami for the benefit of an interested party, and further transfers were treated as void under s.6, so no interference was warranted and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
The dominant issues were whether CBDT instructions could override the Benami Act, 1988 and whether the 2016 amendments were inapplicable where the initial transfer pre-dated the amendment but the property continued to be held thereafter. It was held that CBDT instructions were administrative and did not control or dilute statutory powers; the Initiating Officer validly exercised authority to provisionally attach property under the 1988 Act, hence the challenge failed. It was further held that excluding amended provisions merely because the initial transfer occurred earlier, despite continued holding post-amendment, would impermissibly rewrite the 2016 amendments; hence the amended regime applied. On facts, the property was found to be benami for the benefit of an interested party, and further transfers were treated as void under s.6, so no interference was warranted and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.