https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98207 Section 32A of the IBC was construed as protecting corporate debtor property only from the statutory trigger point after a qualifying change in control following approval of a resolution plan, and not as retrospectively nullifying a provisional attachment already made before such approval. The Tribunal held that reliance on Section 32A(1) was misplaced because the dispute concerned attachment of property, not prosecution, and that immunity under Section 32A depends on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including the status of the incoming person. The prior attachment under PMLA was therefore sustained, and the appeal challenging attachment and confirmation was dismissed. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:48:12 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:48:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98207 Section 32A of the IBC was construed as protecting corporate debtor property only from the statutory trigger point after a qualifying change in control following approval of a resolution plan, and not as retrospectively nullifying a provisional attachment already made before such approval. The Tribunal held that reliance on Section 32A(1) was misplaced because the dispute concerned attachment of property, not prosecution, and that immunity under Section 32A depends on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including the status of the incoming person. The prior attachment under PMLA was therefore sustained, and the appeal challenging attachment and confirmation was dismissed. Highlights Money Laundering Mon, 30 Mar 2026 08:48:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98207