https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412862 The Tribunal held that the resolution professional failed to prove the statutory ingredients of a preferential transaction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It noted that the respondent had earlier advanced unsecured loans to the corporate debtor, repayments had been made over time, and the impugned payment was treated as a refund linked to an earlier advance for booking office premises. As the record showed regular business dealings and no sufficient material that the respondent was placed in a beneficial position contrary to the avoidance framework, the payment was not avoided and the application was rejected. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:03:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412862 The Tribunal held that the resolution professional failed to prove the statutory ingredients of a preferential transaction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It noted that the respondent had earlier advanced unsecured loans to the corporate debtor, repayments had been made over time, and the impugned payment was treated as a refund linked to an earlier advance for booking office premises. As the record showed regular business dealings and no sufficient material that the respondent was placed in a beneficial position contrary to the avoidance framework, the payment was not avoided and the application was rejected. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412862