Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 17, 2024Case LawsAT
The sanction letter clearly mentioned that all existing securities, including the guarantees dated 22.08.2015 and 18.11.2016, would continue to cover the existing facilities with the revised repayment schedule and the fresh FITL facility. The Section 7 Application pertained to Cash Credit, Term Loan, FITL, and Cash Credit Adhoc facilities, for which the guarantees dated 22.08.2015 and 18.11.2016 were applicable. The Consortium Agreement executed on 06.11.2020 did not affect the existing securities, and there was no novation of the contract. The disbursements made pursuant to the 2013 sanction and the guarantees issued by the corporate guarantor on 22.08.2015 and 18.11.2016 continued to bind the corporate guarantor. The subsequent Adhoc Limit and FITL sanctioned on 26.12.2019 and 09.09.2020 were also covered by the existing securities. The bank's invocation of the guarantee on 06.03.2023 was valid, obliging the corporate guarantor to clear the dues. The Appellant did not contest the debt or default but sought to avoid liability on the grounds of novation, which was rejected. The Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 7 Application was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The sanction letter clearly mentioned that all existing securities, including the guarantees dated 22.08.2015 and 18.11.2016, would continue to cover the existing facilities with the revised repayment schedule and the fresh FITL facility. The Section 7 Application pertained to Cash Credit, Term Loan, FITL, and Cash Credit Adhoc facilities, for which the guarantees dated 22.08.2015 and 18.11.2016 were applicable. The Consortium Agreement executed on 06.11.2020 did not affect the existing securities, and there was no novation of the contract. The disbursements made pursuant to the 2013 sanction and the guarantees issued by the corporate guarantor on 22.08.2015 and 18.11.2016 continued to bind the corporate guarantor. The subsequent Adhoc Limit and FITL sanctioned on 26.12.2019 and 09.09.2020 were also covered by the existing securities. The bank's invocation of the guarantee on 06.03.2023 was valid, obliging the corporate guarantor to clear the dues. The Appellant did not contest the debt or default but sought to avoid liability on the grounds of novation, which was rejected. The Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 7 Application was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
