Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Section 32A was applied to protect the corporate debtor's property from attachment where an approved resolution plan had been implemented with a qualifying change in management. The Tribunal, following Manish Kumar, held that statutory immunity extends to property covered by the approved plan for offences committed before commencement of CIRP, so long as control passes to persons unconnected with the erstwhile management and not shown to have abetted or conspired in the offence. It rejected the argument that PMLA attachment could continue merely because the property was alleged to be proceeds of crime, and also noted that the underlying claim had already been finally rejected in insolvency proceedings. The attachment orders were set aside.
Section 32A was applied to protect the corporate debtor's property from attachment where an approved resolution plan had been implemented with a qualifying change in management. The Tribunal, following Manish Kumar, held that statutory immunity extends to property covered by the approved plan for offences committed before commencement of CIRP, so long as control passes to persons unconnected with the erstwhile management and not shown to have abetted or conspired in the offence. It rejected the argument that PMLA attachment could continue merely because the property was alleged to be proceeds of crime, and also noted that the underlying claim had already been finally rejected in insolvency proceedings. The attachment orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.