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...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
The court examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
The court examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
