Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
NCLAT upheld the NCLT's finding that the impugned memorandum of understanding between the erstwhile directors of the corporate debtor and a counterparty was a fraudulent transaction under s.66 of the IBC. The Tribunal held that the payment structure (98.997% consideration paid, with the balance enabling forfeiture) was intentionally designed to siphon funds from the corporate debtor and defraud creditors. It reiterated that no statutory "look back" period applies to fraudulent transactions and that once fraud is established on a preponderance of probabilities supported by substantial evidence, the transaction is void ab initio and non est without requiring civil court cancellation. Finding no procedural or jurisdictional error by NCLT, NCLAT affirmed the direction to the former directors to contribute Rs. 36,53,00,000 to the assets of the corporate debtor and dismissed the appeal.
NCLAT upheld the NCLT's finding that the impugned memorandum of understanding between the erstwhile directors of the corporate debtor and a counterparty was a fraudulent transaction under s.66 of the IBC. The Tribunal held that the payment structure (98.997% consideration paid, with the balance enabling forfeiture) was intentionally designed to siphon funds from the corporate debtor and defraud creditors. It reiterated that no statutory "look back" period applies to fraudulent transactions and that once fraud is established on a preponderance of probabilities supported by substantial evidence, the transaction is void ab initio and non est without requiring civil court cancellation. Finding no procedural or jurisdictional error by NCLT, NCLAT affirmed the direction to the former directors to contribute Rs. 36,53,00,000 to the assets of the corporate debtor and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
