Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2241 to 2260 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" ?
NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by the alleged creditor, holding that he failed to establish any valid, verifiable financial disbursement to qualify as a financial creditor under Section 5(8)(f) IBC. The claimed payments by cheque and cash were unsupported by bank records, receipts, or other documentary evidence, and the burden of proof lay on the appellant. The RP had lawfully rejected the claim, and the mention of "0% claim admitted" did not amount to its admission. NCLAT further noted indicia of collusion with the erstwhile management and unauthorized occupation of a flat without consideration. As the resolution plan had been approved by NCLT and the statutory period under Section 61(2) IBC had expired, the appellant's belated attempt to reopen or revive his claim was held impermissible. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeal was rejected.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by the alleged creditor, holding that he failed to establish any valid, verifiable financial disbursement to qualify as a financial creditor under Section 5(8)(f) IBC. The claimed payments by cheque and cash were unsupported by bank records, receipts, or other documentary evidence, and the burden of proof lay on the appellant. The RP had lawfully rejected the claim, and the mention of "0% claim admitted" did not amount to its admission. NCLAT further noted indicia of collusion with the erstwhile management and unauthorized occupation of a flat without consideration. As the resolution plan had been approved by NCLT and the statutory period under Section 61(2) IBC had expired, the appellant's belated attempt to reopen or revive his claim was held impermissible. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeal was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
