<?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>2025 (3) TMI 437 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767051</link>
    <description>Transactions were examined under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to determine whether they constituted preferential transfers in favour of related parties. Forensic audit material and the record before the adjudicating authority showed a preferential effect, and the appellants failed to produce documents proving that the payments were made in the ordinary course of business or otherwise fell within the statutory exceptions, including Section 43(3). The record also showed that the relevant objections and evidence had been considered, with no perversity or misappreciation demonstrated. On that basis, the transactions were treated as preferential under Section 43.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 437 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767051</link>
      <description>Transactions were examined under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to determine whether they constituted preferential transfers in favour of related parties. Forensic audit material and the record before the adjudicating authority showed a preferential effect, and the appellants failed to produce documents proving that the payments were made in the ordinary course of business or otherwise fell within the statutory exceptions, including Section 43(3). The record also showed that the relevant objections and evidence had been considered, with no perversity or misappreciation demonstrated. On that basis, the transactions were treated as preferential under Section 43.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>