Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 95715 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 upheld the dismissal of a Section 7 petition filed by the appellant against the corporate debtor (CD), finding it was initiated with malicious intent. The tribunal determined that the Rs. 92,00,000 transferred to the CD was not a financial debt but an equity investment to acquire control and directorship. During the relevant period (July-October 2019), common directors served in both entities, indicating the appellant was a related party. The arrangement appeared designed to obstruct SBI's recovery efforts under SARFAESI Act rather than seek genuine resolution. The tribunal concluded the petition was fraudulent, with transactions orchestrated by Mittal family members who controlled both entities, making the claim self-serving and legally untenable. The Rs. 10,00,000 penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed justified.
The NCLAT upheld the dismissal of a Section 7 petition filed by the appellant against the corporate debtor (CD), finding it was initiated with malicious intent. The tribunal determined that the Rs. 92,00,000 transferred to the CD was not a financial debt but an equity investment to acquire control and directorship. During the relevant period (July-October 2019), common directors served in both entities, indicating the appellant was a related party. The arrangement appeared designed to obstruct SBI's recovery efforts under SARFAESI Act rather than seek genuine resolution. The tribunal concluded the petition was fraudulent, with transactions orchestrated by Mittal family members who controlled both entities, making the claim self-serving and legally untenable. The Rs. 10,00,000 penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed justified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
