Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.