Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
