https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96384 Addressing allegations of fraudulent and wrongful trading, the text explains that for liability under Section 66(1) IBC the transaction must be knowingly executed with a dishonest intention to defraud creditors, and that finding must be proved on the preponderance of probability consequence: dishonest intent must be established before contribution can be ordered. It clarifies that Section 66(2) wrongful trading liability attaches only to directors or partners who knew or ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency and failed to minimize creditor loss consequence: director-specific liability is required. Factual transaction-audit and unit visit evidence led to dismissal of the appeal. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 2026 07:26:20 +0530 Wed, 28 Jan 2026 07:26:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96384 Addressing allegations of fraudulent and wrongful trading, the text explains that for liability under Section 66(1) IBC the transaction must be knowingly executed with a dishonest intention to defraud creditors, and that finding must be proved on the preponderance of probability consequence: dishonest intent must be established before contribution can be ordered. It clarifies that Section 66(2) wrongful trading liability attaches only to directors or partners who knew or ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency and failed to minimize creditor loss consequence: director-specific liability is required. Factual transaction-audit and unit visit evidence led to dismissal of the appeal. Highlights IBC Wed, 28 Jan 2026 07:26:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96384