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...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
