Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
