Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 maintainability of the Section 95 IBC application against the personal guarantor and dismissed the appeal. It held that the limitation period could not be confined to the 2017 loan recall notice, as the creditor-corporate debtor relationship continued through arbitration, CIRP, and a 2019 settlement recorded in judicial proceedings. Defaults under the settlement revived and re-acknowledged the original debt, with part-payments extending limitation and a fresh demand notice in 2022 crystallising default against the guarantor, rendering the Section 95 filing timely. The Tribunal further held that the later settlement did not extinguish or substitute the continuing guarantee, nor discharge the guarantor under Section 133.
NCLAT upheld the maintainability of the Section 95 IBC application against the personal guarantor and dismissed the appeal. It held that the limitation period could not be confined to the 2017 loan recall notice, as the creditor-corporate debtor relationship continued through arbitration, CIRP, and a 2019 settlement recorded in judicial proceedings. Defaults under the settlement revived and re-acknowledged the original debt, with part-payments extending limitation and a fresh demand notice in 2022 crystallising default against the guarantor, rendering the Section 95 filing timely. The Tribunal further held that the later settlement did not extinguish or substitute the continuing guarantee, nor discharge the guarantor under Section 133.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.