Expenses for overseas film shooting treated as services availed outside India, so no reverse charge service tax liability; cenvat reversals and penalt...
Electricity consumptionbased clandestine production estimates under the repealed Central Excise Act found insufficient; demand quashed and appeals all...
Section 32A of the IBC was construed as protecting corporate debtor property only from the statutory trigger point after a qualifying change in control following approval of a resolution plan, and not as retrospectively nullifying a provisional attachment already made before such approval. The Tribunal held that reliance on Section 32A(1) was misplaced because the dispute concerned attachment of property, not prosecution, and that immunity under Section 32A depends on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including the status of the incoming person. The prior attachment under PMLA was therefore sustained, and the appeal challenging attachment and confirmation was dismissed.
Section 32A of the IBC was construed as protecting corporate debtor property only from the statutory trigger point after a qualifying change in control following approval of a resolution plan, and not as retrospectively nullifying a provisional attachment already made before such approval. The Tribunal held that reliance on Section 32A(1) was misplaced because the dispute concerned attachment of property, not prosecution, and that immunity under Section 32A depends on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including the status of the incoming person. The prior attachment under PMLA was therefore sustained, and the appeal challenging attachment and confirmation was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
