Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Addressing allegations of fraudulent and wrongful trading, the...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismissed
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Addressing allegations of fraudulent and wrongful trading, the text explains that for liability under Section 66(1) IBC the transaction must be knowingly executed with a dishonest intention to defraud creditors, and that finding must be proved on the preponderance of probability consequence: dishonest intent must be established before contribution can be ordered. It clarifies that Section 66(2) wrongful trading liability attaches only to directors or partners who knew or ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency and failed to minimize creditor loss consequence: director-specific liability is required. Factual transaction-audit and unit visit evidence led to dismissal of the appeal.
Addressing allegations of fraudulent and wrongful trading, the text explains that for liability under Section 66(1) IBC the transaction must be knowingly executed with a dishonest intention to defraud creditors, and that finding must be proved on the preponderance of probability consequence: dishonest intent must be established before contribution can be ordered. It clarifies that Section 66(2) wrongful trading liability attaches only to directors or partners who knew or ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency and failed to minimize creditor loss consequence: director-specific liability is required. Factual transaction-audit and unit visit evidence led to dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
