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" ?
Personal guarantors disputed admission of an insolvency application under s.95 IBC by claiming full repayment, faulty verification in the s.99 report, pendency of DRT recovery proceedings, and defective notice. Guarantor liability was held to continue for the unpaid balance because an approved resolution plan binds stakeholders under s.31 IBC and, absent an express discharge, guarantors remain co-extensively liable under s.128 Contract Act; no no-dues/settlement/novation or other extinguishment document was proved, so the plea of discharge failed. Pendency of DRT proceedings was held not to bar s.95 action, so admission was upheld. Alleged notice/verification lapses caused no prejudice where debt and default stood established, so the appeals were dismissed. - NCLAT
Personal guarantors disputed admission of an insolvency application under s.95 IBC by claiming full repayment, faulty verification in the s.99 report, pendency of DRT recovery proceedings, and defective notice. Guarantor liability was held to continue for the unpaid balance because an approved resolution plan binds stakeholders under s.31 IBC and, absent an express discharge, guarantors remain co-extensively liable under s.128 Contract Act; no no-dues/settlement/novation or other extinguishment document was proved, so the plea of discharge failed. Pendency of DRT proceedings was held not to bar s.95 action, so admission was upheld. Alleged notice/verification lapses caused no prejudice where debt and default stood established, so the appeals were dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.