Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi addressed the maintainability of proceedings u/s 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional failed to provide a clear opinion as required by Regulation 35A, leading to the filing of the application u/s 66. The Tribunal held that action can be taken against any person involved in fraudulent transactions to recover amounts for the Corporate Debtor. In this case, the appellant was closely linked to the Corporate Debtor, reducing the outstanding amount and causing losses to creditors. Previous cases support the Tribunal's decision to uphold orders u/s 66. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order, and the appeal was dismissed. The authority to recover from fraudulent transactions was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc (P) Ltd. vs. Spade Financial Services Ltd.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi addressed the maintainability of proceedings u/s 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional failed to provide a clear opinion as required by Regulation 35A, leading to the filing of the application u/s 66. The Tribunal held that action can be taken against any person involved in fraudulent transactions to recover amounts for the Corporate Debtor. In this case, the appellant was closely linked to the Corporate Debtor, reducing the outstanding amount and causing losses to creditors. Previous cases support the Tribunal's decision to uphold orders u/s 66. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order, and the appeal was dismissed. The authority to recover from fraudulent transactions was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc (P) Ltd. vs. Spade Financial Services Ltd.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
