https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774286 The NCLAT allowed an appeal by the Resolution Professional under Section 66 of IBC seeking refund of amounts from fraudulent transactions. The tribunal found Transaction No. 1 with a land development company contained unusual clause giving unilateral termination rights and forfeiture powers to one party without balanced obligations, constituting fraud. Transaction No. 3 was also deemed fraudulent based on forensic audit findings. The NCLAT rejected arguments about two-year lookback period restrictions for Section 66 cases, emphasizing that courts must examine parties' intent and transaction structures to identify fraudulent methodology. The tribunal set aside the lower authority's order disallowing recovery of amounts from both transactions. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774286 The NCLAT allowed an appeal by the Resolution Professional under Section 66 of IBC seeking refund of amounts from fraudulent transactions. The tribunal found Transaction No. 1 with a land development company contained unusual clause giving unilateral termination rights and forfeiture powers to one party without balanced obligations, constituting fraud. Transaction No. 3 was also deemed fraudulent based on forensic audit findings. The NCLAT rejected arguments about two-year lookback period restrictions for Section 66 cases, emphasizing that courts must examine parties' intent and transaction structures to identify fraudulent methodology. The tribunal set aside the lower authority's order disallowing recovery of amounts from both transactions. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774286