<?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>2022 (6) TMI 986 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424145</link>
    <description>A sham or collusive transaction does not amount to a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Although the claim was supported by loan agreements and bank entries, the record showed inconsistencies in disbursement, repayment and pleadings, while corroborative material indicated common directors, a common registered office and immediate round-tripping of funds. The assessment order and forensic audit report were not treated as conclusive, but they supported the view that the dealings were not ordinary lender-borrower arrangements involving borrowing against time value of money. No bona fide financial debt was proved, and the section 7 petition was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:23:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 986 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424145</link>
      <description>A sham or collusive transaction does not amount to a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Although the claim was supported by loan agreements and bank entries, the record showed inconsistencies in disbursement, repayment and pleadings, while corroborative material indicated common directors, a common registered office and immediate round-tripping of funds. The assessment order and forensic audit report were not treated as conclusive, but they supported the view that the dealings were not ordinary lender-borrower arrangements involving borrowing against time value of money. No bona fide financial debt was proved, and the section 7 petition was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>