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...
NCLAT determined that invocation of corporate guarantee after CIRP commencement is impermissible under Section 14 IBC moratorium provisions. The corporate guarantee was invoked on 18.09.2020, subsequent to CIRP initiation date of 27.01.2020. Following precedents from SC in Ghanshyam Mishra and NCLAT in Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction, the tribunal held that claims based on guarantees invoked post-CIRP cannot be admitted as they had not matured when CIRP commenced. The guarantee should have been invoked prior to CIRP initiation for any valid claim. The appeal was allowed, invalidating the respondent's claim filed based on post-CIRP guarantee invocation, as it violated moratorium restrictions under IBC.
NCLAT determined that invocation of corporate guarantee after CIRP commencement is impermissible under Section 14 IBC moratorium provisions. The corporate guarantee was invoked on 18.09.2020, subsequent to CIRP initiation date of 27.01.2020. Following precedents from SC in Ghanshyam Mishra and NCLAT in Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction, the tribunal held that claims based on guarantees invoked post-CIRP cannot be admitted as they had not matured when CIRP commenced. The guarantee should have been invoked prior to CIRP initiation for any valid claim. The appeal was allowed, invalidating the respondent's claim filed based on post-CIRP guarantee invocation, as it violated moratorium restrictions under IBC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
