Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This appeal arose u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by the Suspended Director against the Adjudicating Authority's order. The Liquidator had obtained a Transaction Audit Report, which identified a payment of Rs. 3,67,900/- to the Suspended Director as a preferential transaction. The Adjudicating Authority rightly noted that this payment placed the Suspended Director in a beneficial position against the provisions of Section 53, which prioritizes secured creditors and workmen over unsecured creditors. The Suspended Director could have staked his claim for the outstanding unsecured loan u/s 53's waterfall mechanism. Since the Liquidator formed an opinion based on the Transaction Audit Report and filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority, the contention that the Liquidator did not form an opinion cannot be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
This appeal arose u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by the Suspended Director against the Adjudicating Authority's order. The Liquidator had obtained a Transaction Audit Report, which identified a payment of Rs. 3,67,900/- to the Suspended Director as a preferential transaction. The Adjudicating Authority rightly noted that this payment placed the Suspended Director in a beneficial position against the provisions of Section 53, which prioritizes secured creditors and workmen over unsecured creditors. The Suspended Director could have staked his claim for the outstanding unsecured loan u/s 53's waterfall mechanism. Since the Liquidator formed an opinion based on the Transaction Audit Report and filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority, the contention that the Liquidator did not form an opinion cannot be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
