Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Insolvency and BankruptcyApril 15, 2024Case LawsAT
Initiation of CIRP based on a corporate guarantee provided to a consortium of lenders- Validity of deed of Guarantee - The tribunal noted that the guarantee exceeded the statutory limits under Section 186 but highlighted that the corporate debtor and principal borrower were closely linked family businesses. This closeness implied a level of awareness and consent to the risks involved, undermining the appellant's argument for invalidity based on statutory non-compliance. It was established that the deed of guarantee was executed in favor of the trusteeship managing the consortium’s interest, thus granting the lenders, including the respondent bank, the right to enforce the guarantee. The tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim of lack of privity of contract.
Initiation of CIRP based on a corporate guarantee provided to a consortium of lenders- Validity of deed of Guarantee - The tribunal noted that the guarantee exceeded the statutory limits under Section 186 but highlighted that the corporate debtor and principal borrower were closely linked family businesses. This closeness implied a level of awareness and consent to the risks involved, undermining the appellant's argument for invalidity based on statutory non-compliance. It was established that the deed of guarantee was executed in favor of the trusteeship managing the consortium’s interest, thus granting the lenders, including the respondent bank, the right to enforce the guarantee. The tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim of lack of privity of contract.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
