Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
For insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation runs from the demand notice invoking the guarantee and the guarantor's failure to pay within the stipulated period, not from the corporate debtor's default record. The Appellate Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.10.2019 validly invoked the personal guarantees, the relevant default date was 24.12.2019, and the Section 95 applications filed on 31.03.2022 were therefore within limitation. It also held that the absence of the revival letter with the original application was irrelevant to limitation, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the petitions as time-barred or in finding inconsistent default dates. The impugned orders were set aside and the petitions revived for fresh consideration under Section 100.
For insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation runs from the demand notice invoking the guarantee and the guarantor's failure to pay within the stipulated period, not from the corporate debtor's default record. The Appellate Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.10.2019 validly invoked the personal guarantees, the relevant default date was 24.12.2019, and the Section 95 applications filed on 31.03.2022 were therefore within limitation. It also held that the absence of the revival letter with the original application was irrelevant to limitation, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the petitions as time-barred or in finding inconsistent default dates. The impugned orders were set aside and the petitions revived for fresh consideration under Section 100.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
