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 NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Authority's finding that Clause 33 capped the guarantor's entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal held that Clause 33, interpreted by its plain contractual terms, limits only the principal guarantee quantum to Rs.25 crore; the guarantor remains separately liable for default interest arising from delayed discharge of guarantee obligations. The appellant's claim exceeding Rs.25 crore was not held to contravene Clause 33, and the Adjudicating Authority erred in conflating discharge of the principal borrower's liability with the guarantor's obligation to pay default interest. The impugned directions are quashed and the appeal is allowed.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Authority's finding that Clause 33 capped the guarantor's entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal held that Clause 33, interpreted by its plain contractual terms, limits only the principal guarantee quantum to Rs.25 crore; the guarantor remains separately liable for default interest arising from delayed discharge of guarantee obligations. The appellant's claim exceeding Rs.25 crore was not held to contravene Clause 33, and the Adjudicating Authority erred in conflating discharge of the principal borrower's liability with the guarantor's obligation to pay default interest. The impugned directions are quashed and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
