Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
