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...
The HC dismissed the suit seeking a declaration that the plaintiff bank was discharged from its obligations under unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantees (BGs) issued in favor of the respondent. The court held that the BGs constituted independent contracts guaranteeing due repayment upon mere demand, regardless of disputes between the principal debtor and beneficiary. The plaintiff failed to establish any variation or discharge of the principal debtor's liability, including the unilateral alteration of payment methodology, which was not a contractual term. Consequently, the plaintiff remained liable under the BGs. The court distinguished prior rulings where the principal debtor was discharged, thereby releasing the surety, noting such was not the case here. The plaintiff was granted liberty to pursue its claims against the principal debtor through insolvency proceedings or other legal remedies.
The HC dismissed the suit seeking a declaration that the plaintiff bank was discharged from its obligations under unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantees (BGs) issued in favor of the respondent. The court held that the BGs constituted independent contracts guaranteeing due repayment upon mere demand, regardless of disputes between the principal debtor and beneficiary. The plaintiff failed to establish any variation or discharge of the principal debtor's liability, including the unilateral alteration of payment methodology, which was not a contractual term. Consequently, the plaintiff remained liable under the BGs. The court distinguished prior rulings where the principal debtor was discharged, thereby releasing the surety, noting such was not the case here. The plaintiff was granted liberty to pursue its claims against the principal debtor through insolvency proceedings or other legal remedies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
