Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
The Appellate Tribunal treated the square-off of receivables as a related party preferential transaction within the relevant look-back period under the insolvency framework. It found that the appellant, as director and key managerial person, controlled the entities involved, that the adjustment was recorded within two years of the insolvency commencement date, and that accounting entries could amount to transfer of property by extinguishing the corporate debtor's receivable. The Tribunal also rejected the ordinary course of business defence because the set-off bypassed banking channels, lacked authorisation, and selectively settled the appellant's dues while other creditors remained unpaid. The impugned transaction was therefore liable to be avoided.
The Appellate Tribunal treated the square-off of receivables as a related party preferential transaction within the relevant look-back period under the insolvency framework. It found that the appellant, as director and key managerial person, controlled the entities involved, that the adjustment was recorded within two years of the insolvency commencement date, and that accounting entries could amount to transfer of property by extinguishing the corporate debtor's receivable. The Tribunal also rejected the ordinary course of business defence because the set-off bypassed banking channels, lacked authorisation, and selectively settled the appellant's dues while other creditors remained unpaid. The impugned transaction was therefore liable to be avoided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
