<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (11) TMI 1475 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291063</link>
    <description>During moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, recovery against the corporate debtor is barred, and inconsistent tax recovery action is displaced by the Code&#039;s overriding effect; amounts recovered from the debtor&#039;s bank account were therefore directed to be reversed and protected under the Resolution Professional&#039;s control. The text also states that an operational creditor&#039;s claim was rejected as the underlying transaction was found not genuine and was treated as extortionate, preferential, incorrect and fraudulent. A tax claim raised after the resolution plan had already reached the CoC approval stage was not entertained because it would unsettle an advanced resolution process, and no interference was found warranted where the CoC and Resolution Professional followed the prescribed process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:28:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1475 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291063</link>
      <description>During moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, recovery against the corporate debtor is barred, and inconsistent tax recovery action is displaced by the Code&#039;s overriding effect; amounts recovered from the debtor&#039;s bank account were therefore directed to be reversed and protected under the Resolution Professional&#039;s control. The text also states that an operational creditor&#039;s claim was rejected as the underlying transaction was found not genuine and was treated as extortionate, preferential, incorrect and fraudulent. A tax claim raised after the resolution plan had already reached the CoC approval stage was not entertained because it would unsettle an advanced resolution process, and no interference was found warranted where the CoC and Resolution Professional followed the prescribed process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>