Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
