Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
