Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Payments of Rs. 19,66,698.77 made to a related party director within the two year look back period were treated as preferential transactions because the payments reduced the corporate debtor's liability to the related party and could not be excluded by tracing the source of funds. The tribunal held that Regulation 35A timelines are directory, not mandatory, and principles of natural justice were not breached where the adjudicating authority considered the appellant's written objections on merits despite an earlier ex parte notation. The liquidator's investigative power during liquidation to challenge preferential or undervalued transactions validated the challenge; appeals were dismissed.
Payments of Rs. 19,66,698.77 made to a related party director within the two year look back period were treated as preferential transactions because the payments reduced the corporate debtor's liability to the related party and could not be excluded by tracing the source of funds. The tribunal held that Regulation 35A timelines are directory, not mandatory, and principles of natural justice were not breached where the adjudicating authority considered the appellant's written objections on merits despite an earlier ex parte notation. The liquidator's investigative power during liquidation to challenge preferential or undervalued transactions validated the challenge; appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
