Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7501 to 7520 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4819 
Join Channel 
