IBC resolution plan immunity from money-laundering: corporate debtor removed as accused; cases continue against ex-directors, attached assets refunded...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7441 to 7460 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether a penalty order under s.271(1)(c) could be validly passed during pendency of the quantum appeal, and within the limitation framework of s.275. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that such penalty orders are premature, illegal, and without jurisdiction because the authority must keep penalty proceedings in abeyance until the appellate forum disposes of the appeal, upon which jurisdiction to impose penalty would arise. The Court also held that the Finance Act, 2025 amendment to s.275 applies prospectively to pending matters from 1 April 2025 but does not revive limitation already expired by 31 March 2025. The impugned penalty order was quashed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a penalty order under s.271(1)(c) could be validly passed during pendency of the quantum appeal, and within the limitation framework of s.275. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that such penalty orders are premature, illegal, and without jurisdiction because the authority must keep penalty proceedings in abeyance until the appellate forum disposes of the appeal, upon which jurisdiction to impose penalty would arise. The Court also held that the Finance Act, 2025 amendment to s.275 applies prospectively to pending matters from 1 April 2025 but does not revive limitation already expired by 31 March 2025. The impugned penalty order was quashed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
