TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The Appellant's involvement in fictitious LED bulb transactions was held to constitute fraudulent trading under Section 66(1) of the IBC, as these dealings were orchestrated to inflate turnover and siphon funds, causing an actual loss of Rs. 3.18 crores to the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT affirmed that the Adjudicating Authority acted within jurisdiction, relying on concrete forensic evidence rather than conjecture. The direction for the Appellant to contribute Rs. 3.18 crores to the Corporate Debtor's assets was upheld as a lawful, proportionate remedy aimed at restoring the debtor's estate, not punitive in nature. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Appellant's liability for fraudulent depletion of corporate assets.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
