Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT upheld the Respondent Bank's right to invoke a continuing personal guarantee against the Appellant despite auction proceedings. The Tribunal determined that the guarantee agreement remained legally binding, with clauses explicitly stating the guarantee's continuity irrespective of principal borrower's discharge or legal operations. Explanation (b) of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was interpreted to exclude court-ordered monetary recoveries from debt calculations. Consequently, the Appellant's arguments challenging the guarantee's enforceability were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as meritless, affirming the bank's absolute right to pursue recovery through the personal guarantee.
NCLAT upheld the Respondent Bank's right to invoke a continuing personal guarantee against the Appellant despite auction proceedings. The Tribunal determined that the guarantee agreement remained legally binding, with clauses explicitly stating the guarantee's continuity irrespective of principal borrower's discharge or legal operations. Explanation (b) of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was interpreted to exclude court-ordered monetary recoveries from debt calculations. Consequently, the Appellant's arguments challenging the guarantee's enforceability were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as meritless, affirming the bank's absolute right to pursue recovery through the personal guarantee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.