Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
NCLAT held that repeated non-deposit of amounts deducted from employees' salaries, which were held in trust for remittance to the employees' co-operative society, attracted fraudulent trading liability under Section 66 of the Code. The appellants admitted the deductions and failed to produce reliable material showing any legitimate use of the funds as working capital. The Tribunal further held that proof of personal gain is not essential for fraud; an act or omission intended to deceive or to injure the interests of the corporate debtor or its creditors is sufficient. The finding of liability and the direction for contribution were affirmed.
NCLAT held that repeated non-deposit of amounts deducted from employees' salaries, which were held in trust for remittance to the employees' co-operative society, attracted fraudulent trading liability under Section 66 of the Code. The appellants admitted the deductions and failed to produce reliable material showing any legitimate use of the funds as working capital. The Tribunal further held that proof of personal gain is not essential for fraud; an act or omission intended to deceive or to injure the interests of the corporate debtor or its creditors is sufficient. The finding of liability and the direction for contribution were affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
