Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
The dominant issue was whether a deed clause and related pleadings created a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to support initiation of CIRP against the alleged surety under s.7 of the IBC. The Court held that a guarantee requires an unambiguous undertaking to discharge a third party's liability upon default; a limited statement in mortgage-enforcement pleadings that liability was confined to the mortgaged property did not establish such a guarantee, and case law on admissions under s.58 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable. Consequently, the rejection of the s.7 application was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. - SC
The dominant issue was whether a deed clause and related pleadings created a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to support initiation of CIRP against the alleged surety under s.7 of the IBC. The Court held that a guarantee requires an unambiguous undertaking to discharge a third party's liability upon default; a limited statement in mortgage-enforcement pleadings that liability was confined to the mortgaged property did not establish such a guarantee, and case law on admissions under s.58 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable. Consequently, the rejection of the s.7 application was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.