<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1538 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788783</link>
    <description>An accounting adjustment that extinguishes a corporate debtor&#039;s receivable in favour of a related party can constitute a preferential transfer under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, even without physical movement of funds. The tribunal treated the square-off and offsetting entries as a transfer because they reduced the debtor&#039;s asset pool and satisfied dues of entities under common control. It also found the transaction fell within the relevant look-back period for related parties. The plea that the adjustment was in the ordinary course of business failed, as the entry bypassed banking channels, lacked corporate authorisation, and was not a routine commercial transaction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1538 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788783</link>
      <description>An accounting adjustment that extinguishes a corporate debtor&#039;s receivable in favour of a related party can constitute a preferential transfer under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, even without physical movement of funds. The tribunal treated the square-off and offsetting entries as a transfer because they reduced the debtor&#039;s asset pool and satisfied dues of entities under common control. It also found the transaction fell within the relevant look-back period for related parties. The plea that the adjustment was in the ordinary course of business failed, as the entry bypassed banking channels, lacked corporate authorisation, and was not a routine commercial transaction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>