Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
In Section 95 insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation under Article 137 had to be assessed from the actual invocation of guarantee and the date of default, not from the Form B demand notice. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating Form B as invocation, and noted that a decree obtained within limitation could furnish a fresh cause of action. It also found the limitation computation flawed because Covid-related exclusion days were deducted without adequate basis. Letters dated 17.03.2022 and 12.07.2022, and admission of the creditor's claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP, were material on acknowledgment and limitation but had not been properly considered, so the matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned decision.
In Section 95 insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation under Article 137 had to be assessed from the actual invocation of guarantee and the date of default, not from the Form B demand notice. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating Form B as invocation, and noted that a decree obtained within limitation could furnish a fresh cause of action. It also found the limitation computation flawed because Covid-related exclusion days were deducted without adequate basis. Letters dated 17.03.2022 and 12.07.2022, and admission of the creditor's claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP, were material on acknowledgment and limitation but had not been properly considered, so the matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
