Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that the amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
The NCLAT held that the amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
