https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463597 NCLAT (PB) dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the appellant failed to establish a fraudulent transaction under section 66 IBC arising from a purported write-off of an advance/EMD. The court noted absence of particulars-no specific date of the alleged Rs. 2.65 crore payment and no evidence of how the vendor was pursued-so the Tribunal's conclusion required no interference. The appeal was therefore dismissed. en-us Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 18:59:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463597 NCLAT (PB) dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the appellant failed to establish a fraudulent transaction under section 66 IBC arising from a purported write-off of an advance/EMD. The court noted absence of particulars-no specific date of the alleged Rs. 2.65 crore payment and no evidence of how the vendor was pursued-so the Tribunal's conclusion required no interference. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463597