Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
