<?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>Appeal Fails as Reseller Not Financial Creditor; Revenue-Sharing Deal Not Financial Debt Under Section 5(8) IBC</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94677</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of a CIRP petition, holding that the appellant is not a &quot;Financial Creditor&quot; under the IBC. Examining the Reseller Agreement, the Tribunal found no disbursement of money as a loan, no obligation of repayment with interest, and no element of time value of money as required under Section 5(8) IBC. The arrangement was characterized as a commercial collaboration and revenue-sharing model linked to resale of goods on an online platform, with contingent, profit-based returns rather than assured interest. The Tribunal held the alleged debt does not qualify as &quot;financial debt&quot;; consequently, the insolvency proceedings were not maintainable and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal Fails as Reseller Not Financial Creditor; Revenue-Sharing Deal Not Financial Debt Under Section 5(8) IBC</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94677</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging rejection of a CIRP petition, holding that the appellant is not a &quot;Financial Creditor&quot; under the IBC. Examining the Reseller Agreement, the Tribunal found no disbursement of money as a loan, no obligation of repayment with interest, and no element of time value of money as required under Section 5(8) IBC. The arrangement was characterized as a commercial collaboration and revenue-sharing model linked to resale of goods on an online platform, with contingent, profit-based returns rather than assured interest. The Tribunal held the alleged debt does not qualify as &quot;financial debt&quot;; consequently, the insolvency proceedings were not maintainable and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>