Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6881 to 6900 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4811 
Join Channel 
