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...
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.