Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that the moratorium u/s 14 of the IBC shall not impede the invocation of an irrevocable bank guarantee, which is an independent and separate contract between the parties. If the bank guarantee is invoked and any amount is received by Respondent No. 1, their claim has to be revised as intimated by the IRP. The Appellate Tribunal found no error committed by the Adjudicating Authority in allowing the application filed by the Respondent and dismissed the appeal.
The NCLAT held that the moratorium u/s 14 of the IBC shall not impede the invocation of an irrevocable bank guarantee, which is an independent and separate contract between the parties. If the bank guarantee is invoked and any amount is received by Respondent No. 1, their claim has to be revised as intimated by the IRP. The Appellate Tribunal found no error committed by the Adjudicating Authority in allowing the application filed by the Respondent and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
