<?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 (8) TMI 259 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776072</link>
    <description>The NCLAT upheld the Liquidator&#039;s findings that the Corporate Debtor&#039;s transactions involving purchase and return of Hot Roll Trimming at significantly reduced prices were undervalued and not in the ordinary course of business, causing losses. The lookback period under Section 45 IBC was confirmed as one year preceding the CIRP date for unrelated parties, and the Liquidator&#039;s revised loss figures were accepted. Appointment of the forensic auditor without Adjudicating Authority approval was held valid under the Code. Alleged misconduct of the Liquidator in other cases was deemed irrelevant here. Transactions by third parties fall within Section 45&#039;s ambit, and the Appellants&#039; contention otherwise was rejected. Appeals were dismissed except for transactions beyond the statutory lookback period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 259 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776072</link>
      <description>The NCLAT upheld the Liquidator&#039;s findings that the Corporate Debtor&#039;s transactions involving purchase and return of Hot Roll Trimming at significantly reduced prices were undervalued and not in the ordinary course of business, causing losses. The lookback period under Section 45 IBC was confirmed as one year preceding the CIRP date for unrelated parties, and the Liquidator&#039;s revised loss figures were accepted. Appointment of the forensic auditor without Adjudicating Authority approval was held valid under the Code. Alleged misconduct of the Liquidator in other cases was deemed irrelevant here. Transactions by third parties fall within Section 45&#039;s ambit, and the Appellants&#039; contention otherwise was rejected. Appeals were dismissed except for transactions beyond the statutory lookback period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>