PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
