|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1752 Records
-
2016 (11) TMI 1697 - ITAT CHENNAI
Unabsorbed depreciation set off against the long term capital gain - HELD THAT:- By placing reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors P Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 [2014 (1) TMI 1908 - ITAT CHENNAI] allowed the claim of the assessee. The only contention of the department representative is that the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench of this Tribunal is against the assessee.
This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court has to be preferred rather than the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench of this Tribunal. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly placed his reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors P Ltd. (supra) rather than the decision of Mumbai Special Bench of this Tribunal in Times Guarantee Ltd. (supra). - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1696 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - sufficiency of own funds - suo moto disallowance - ITAT deleted the addition - satisfactory explanation - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that while making the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Assessing Officer did not record as to how the expenditure as claimed by the assessee was not satisfactory, and considering the fact that the assessee had sufficient interest free fund, out of which the concerned investment had been made, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer made under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Under the circumstances and considering the direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of India Gelatine and Chemicals Limited .[2015 (11) TMI 392 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
No substantial question of law arise in the present appeal.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1695 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bogus purchases - Addition u/s 69C - HELD THAT:- Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 1146 - SC ORDER] whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order passed by the Gujarat High Court [2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., [2016 (6) TMI 1139 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments.
We remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1694 - THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Oppression and mismanagement - transfer of shares - holding of Extraordinary General Meeting - whether the R1/petitioner is entitled to maintain the C.P. under Section 397 and 398 alleging oppression and mismanagement? - HELD THAT:- The applicant NSS Karayogam is neither a shareholder in Rl company, nor any relief has been claimed against the same. Moreover, the petitioner is not a secretary of NSS Karayogam as has been held by the Subordinate court. Kozhicode. dated. 28.6.20 12. He is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the matter relating to C.P. filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 1956. because no relief is claimed against the applicant, nor any transfer of shares pertaining to NSS Karayogam is under challenge. There is no concern whatsoever of NSS Karayogam with the Company petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1693 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction u/s 80IA(4) - profit from infrastructure development and their operation and maintenance activities - assessee-company is engaged in the business of development of various infrastructure facilities relating to water and sewage treatment and its operation and maintenance - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2013 (4) TMI 969 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] relying on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries [2010 (2) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as directly applicable on the assessee, wherein it was opined that the said assessee entered into a contract for supply, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of container handling cranes at JNPT for a term of 10 years whereafter the same would vest in the letter, is entitled for deduction u/s.80IA(4). This decision of the Hon’ble Court is directly applicable on the facts of the case.
Thus as Respected Coordinate Bench has already granted the deduction claimed by the assessee, therefore for the years under consideration the assessee is entitled for the deduction u/s.80IA(4) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1692 - SC ORDER
CENVAT Credit - Input services - output transportation - scope of input services - Rule 2(l) of CCR - It was held by High Court that Credit of service tax paid on outward transportation allowed prior to 1.4.2008 - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1691 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Extension of Interim Order - HELD THAT:- Let this matter appear in the list on 1st December, 2016 under the same heading as "Extension of Interim Order" at the top.
The interim order which was passed earlier, will continue till 15th December, 2016 or until further order whichever is earlier.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1690 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Application for vacating the interim order - agreement for sale transcribed on sufficient Stamp Paper or not - HELD THAT:- The agreement for sale which was allegedly entered into between the parties, has also annexed to the injunction application. The agreement was typed out on ten rupee Non-Judicial Stamp Paper - it is found that the agreement itself was typed out on insufficient Stamp Paper. Such an agreement for sale parse cannot be enforced unless the document is impounded. Impounding can be done only when the original agreement is tendered into evidence.
The plaintiff claims that he has paid a sum of ₹ 65,00,000/- on account of earnest money in cash. The agreement does not contain any receipt clause. No separate receipt is also forth-coming from the side of the plaintiff showing payment of ₹ 65,00,000/- to the defendants; even the agreement does not contain any description of the notes by which such payment was tendered to the plaintiff - It cannot be held that a prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff for going for trial.
The learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality by refusing to pass any ad interim order of injunction in such a suit - Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1689 - SUPREME COURT
Acquisition of Land Under Section 305 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Appellants' main submission was that they had obtained the permission from the Municipal Corporation so as to raise construction - HELD THAT:- Section 305 deals with the power of Corporation to regulate line of buildings. If any part of the building falls within the regular line of a public street either existing or as determined for the future or beyond the front of immediately adjoining building, the Corporation may issue a notice either that part which is projecting or some portion of the part projecting, shall be removed or that when the building is rebuilt, the portion projecting shall be set back to and the portion of the land added to the street by such "setting back or removal", shall henceforth be deemed to be part of the public street and shall vest in the Corporation - The interpretation suggested upon Section 292, as to the expression scheme Under Section 291 of the Act of 1956 or only to a scheme Under Section 49/50 of the Act of 1973 cannot be accepted. The provisions of the Act of 1973 and the provisions of Section 292 of the Act of 1956. Under the Act of 1973, there is a regional plan, development plan or town development scheme they have to be understood included in expression 'scheme' under the provisions of Section 292.
Article 300A enables the State to put restrictions on the right by law but the same should not be arbitrary or excessive or beyond what is required in public interest. The imposition of restriction must not be disproportionate to a situation or statute. Legislation providing for deprivation of property Under Article 300A must be just, fair and reasonable - it cannot be said that illusory compensation is provided Under Section 306 read with Section 387. The decision renders no help to the cause espoused on behalf of the Appellants and on a closer scrutiny, rather counters it.
Reasonable compensation is payable by the Corporation for building or part thereof excluding the land under proviso to Section 305(1) and compensation for inclusion of land in public street is payable Under Section 306(3) of the Act. We do not find any ground so as to read down the provisions. We refrain to comment upon the submission with respect to the granting additional FAR is not acceptable to some Appellants, as it is not the stage of dealing with compensation how the total indemnification is to be made, whether FAR is acceptable to the Appellants or not, cannot be decided at this stage - The Appellants are at liberty to raise the question with respect to the adequacy of compensation and how the provision of Section 387 has to be interpreted and what would be the just compensation at the appropriate stage of determination of compensation.
The appeals being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1688 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of application - alternative remedy available to the Petitioner by way of revision - failure to make loan repayment - Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- The order of the High Court has no legs to stand in view of the law laid down by this Court in PRABHU CHAWLA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [2016 (9) TMI 1595 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of the divergent opinions of this Court in the case of DHARIWAL TOBACO PRODUCTS LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [2008 (12) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT] and MOHIT ALIAS SONU AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [2013 (7) TMI 1005 - SUPREME COURT], the matter was placed before the three Judge Bench of this Court. The three Judge Bench took the view that Section 482 begins with a non-obstante clause to state "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". As Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure only to petty interlocutory orders. A situation is wholly unwarranted and undesirable.
Thus, mere availability of alternative remedy cannot be a ground to dis-entitle the relief Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - also it is felt that the learned Judge without appreciating any of the factual and legal position, in a mechanical way, passed the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court.
The matter is remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in the light of the settled legal position - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1687 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from house property - allowability of Maintenance charges against lease income - allowability of impugned charges/taxes from lease income which has been disallowed by revenue primarily on the ground that the assessee has offered income only against one property - HELD THAT:- When Income is calculated under the head House Property, then besides statutory deduction of 30% u/s 24, an assessee is entitled only for deduction with respect to taxes levied by any local authority. Therefore, society maintenance charges levied by the Society which is not a local authority are not at all allowable to the assessee. Therefore, we held so and accordingly, maintenance charges of four flats are not allowable under the head ‘Income from House Property’.
As assessee has contended that Godown has been used by assessee for business purposes and therefore, we restore this matter to file of AO for limited purpose of verifying assessee’s claim that the godown was used for business purpose during impugned AY or not and if so, allow the deduction for municipal taxes under the head ‘Business Income’. So far as regarding, municipal taxes for four properties are concerned, a combined perusal of Statement of Total Income for AY 2006-07 & 2005-06 strengthens the claim the assessee that lease income has been offered on receipt basis as per TDS certificates to avoid mismatch of TDS credit. Therefore, we held that municipal taxes relating to four properties are allowable under the head ‘Income from House Property. The appeal of the assessee against Ground Nos. 1 to 3 is partly allowed.
Disallowance u/s 43B - We find that assessee had filed return of income for AY 2006-07 on 06/11/2006 whereas the 43B claim of the assessee for AY 2005-06 has been disallowed by AO vide order dated 05/12/2007 and affirmed by CIT(A) order dated 25/03/2009. Therefore, there was no occasion with the assessee to claim the same in statement of total income. Therefore, this matter is also restored to AO for limited purpose of verifying the 43B payment made by the assessee and allow the same to the extent of ₹ 7,70,986/-, if the same has not been allowed in AY 2005-06 consequent to Tribunal’s order. The ground nos. 3 to 6 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1686 - ITAT COCHIN
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - disallowance of interest expenses - technical error in furnishing the declaration in Form 15G/15H wherein certain columns of the Forms were not filled-up by the payee - HELD THAT:- Genuineness of the deposit received and the payment of interest on the same for the relevant assessment years has never been doubted by the income tax authorities. The declaration has been furnished by the persons who are in receipt of the interest stating that their income is below the threshold limit for taxation and no tax need to be deducted. The disallowance made for the relevant assessment year is for the reasons that there is a technical error in furnishing the declaration in Form 15G/15H wherein certain columns of the Forms were not filled-up by the payee.
The mistakes found in the declaration are of technical nature and the assessee could have got it corrected, had he been given an opportunity, instead of taking to the extreme step of adding back the entire interest payment. AO and the CIT(A) instead of giving an opportunity to the assessee to correct the Form 15G/15H had straight away invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the interest expenditure. Non furnishing of statement to CIT as mentioned in Rule 29C(5) only entails the assessee for penalty u/s 272A(2) of the Act and not for a automatic disallowance of interest expenditure by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia).
Non filling up of the column in Form 15G/15H by the payee’s are only technical default, which could have been corrected had the assessee been given an opportunity. The assessee should be given an opportunity to correct the technical error with regard to the defaults that is containing in Forms 15G/15H. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall produce the corrected Form 15G/15H for the relevant period from the payee and shall submit the same to the Assessing Officer. If the corrected forms in 15G/15H are submitted, there shall be no disallowance of interest expenditure. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1685 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 - whether the cash deposited was coming out of the cash available with the assessee being a NRI, which was kept by him for last two years? - HELD THAT:- It was not brought on record why he has withdrawn so much of money and what made the assessee to keep such huge money in hand. But, on record, submitted by the assessee, we find that he had sufficient money. Even the AO could not bring any proof that the assessee has in fact utilized or applied the cash withdrawn two years back, except making a remark that there is no possibility of keeping such amount by the assessee being a NRI. He has not brought on record, why he cannot keep so much of cash in hand and no contrary findings were given by him against the submissions of assessee. AO has made the addition merely on conjectures/surmises/suspicion and no proper reasons were given why he cannot keep the cash in hand except the remark of being an NRI.
In our view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. [1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the AO cannot complete the assessment purely on guess and without any reference to evidence or any material at all. Also in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Brothers [1959 (5) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] has held that AO cannot complete the assessment merely on suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters.
Thus we hold that the AO made the assessment merely on suspicion and without bringing any cogent material on record to establish that assessee cannot keep the cash in his hand being a NRI. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1684 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT Credit - input services - crane hired for the purpose of using shifting the goods in the factory premises and expansion of the factory site - HELD THAT:- Wide coverage of the “input services” under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 enables appellant to be entitled to Cenvat credit of the service tax paid.
Appeal allowed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1683 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - CIT-A restricted the addition @12.5% - HELD THAT:- Revenue’s plea is entirely misconceived since the said co-ordinate bench merely admitted assessee’s additional evidence to direct the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication of the issue. The lower appellate authority has duly considered the same in its order to agree with the Assessing Officer’s findings in principle that the assessee has not been able to prove genuineness of its grey cloth purchases. It thereafter is of the opinion that it is not the entire purchases but only the gross profit element therein has to be added @12.5% of the amount in question.
DR fails to dispute the fact that assessee’s sales/exports of the grey cloth already stand accepted. Nor does it file before us any material to conclude that the above percentage of the addition is in any way unreasonable. We thus find no reason to interfere with the lower appellate order restricting the impugned bogus purchases addition in peculiar facts of the case. It is made clear that the above percentage shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year in assessee’s cases. Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1682 - ITAT INDORE
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - payment of excise duty adjusting the excise duty towards the sale of old stock - HELD THAT:- AO was of the view that during the assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee is manufacturing utensils and sold them under payment of Central Excise Duty through Modvat credit. It was found that the assessee company has utilised the Modvat credit. Company has also concealed the sales - Assessing Officer was of the view that as per the books of accounts the provisions of excise duty on finished goods, as appearing in the books of accounts, as on 1.4.2002 was ₹ 732279/-. Out of the said provisions of excise duty, the assessee has adjusted the amount of ₹ 661612/- towards sale of old stock during the year under consideration. Thus, the assessee has made payment of excise duty adjusting the excise duty towards the sale of old stock. This, this was a new information. Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment and the reopening is justified. AO has reopened the assessment on the information which was available to him. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the appeal on the ground that the reopening is not correct.
AO reopened the assessment order on the ground that the assessee has utilised the amount of Modvat credit as per the audit report which did not tally with the excise duty debited to the profit and loss account - The assessee has shown excise duty payment in his return of income. AO has taken up two figures of excise duty from the return of the assessee that the excise duty of ₹ 7512186/- claimed as expenses in profit and loss account and in tax audit report Modvat credit claimed was ₹ 7743268/-. Therefore, when these two figures were picked up from the return of income and audit report filed by the assessee, it cannot be proved that the Assessing Officer has any information.
Assessing Officer has, by booking the two figures, come to the conclusion that there are unaccounted sales but there is no tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment and, therefore, the reopening of the case cannot be sustained. We find that the learned CIT(A) has verified the accounts, reconciliation statement of excise duty paid which was filed before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has held that there is no reason to believe that there is separation of sale to the extent of ₹ 5160039/-. We also get support from the order in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Orient Craft Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal of the revenue and dismiss the same.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1681 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - disallowing the expenses relatable to exempted income - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the only exempted income earned by assessee on account of dividend is ₹ 20,000/-. As we find that this issue is covered in favour of assessee as far as restricting the disallowance to the extent of exempted income only and for this placing reliance on the case of Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 1204 - ITAT MUMBAI] direct the AO to restrict the disallowance at ₹ 20,000/- and hence, this issue of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1680 - DELHI HIGH COURT
While allowing the writ petition by the order under appeal, certain findings were recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to the enforcement of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on interpretation of the provisions of the said Act - the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge shall not be construed as conclusive and binding precedent until further orders.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1679 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake - TP Adjustment - Tribunal observed assessee is the owner of two television channels, viz., The National Geographical Channel and FOX International Channel” - As submitted that the FOX International Channel is not owned by the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that the assessee was having “Principal to Agent” relationship under “Advertising Sales Representation Agreement” dated 01-07-2004 entered with NGC India effective from 01-09-2004. The above said agreement was terminated and a new agreement was entered on 01-05-2006, wherein the assessee sold advertisement and sponsorship air time to NGC India. The tax authorities, after examining the agreements and related facts, came to the conclusion the relationship between the assessee and NGC India continues to be that of “Principal and agent”. The above said decision was upheld by the Tribunal by making a modification, viz., the Tribunal held that the provisions of Article 5(4)(a) of India-US DTAA shall be applicable. Thus we notice that the Tribunal has taken a conscious view in the matter. In view of the above, there was no necessity to deal with other submissions made by the assessee.We do not find any merit in the contentions of the assessee that there was incorrect appreciation of facts.
Whether “advertisement airtime” is “Goods” or not? - We notice that the assessing officer has discussed at length about this issue in the assessment order. We notice that the Tribunal has considered this issue in paragraph 18 & 19 of the order and has taken a conscious view that the advertisement airtime is not “goods”, by duly considering the characteristics of “airtime”. We notice that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the above said decisions in paragraph 18 of the order. In effect, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the “airtime” is not goods, since it is only allocation of a portion of telecasting time.Since the Tribunal has taken a view in this matter, the same cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent from record.
Taxability of “Distribution revenue”- We notice that the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the AO with the observation that the AO has not critically examined the provisions of India-US DTAA and also the provisions of sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act. We are unable to agree with the contentions of the assessee. As submitted by Ld D.R, the power of the Tribunal is wider and it is entitled to take its own decision as it thinks fit to dispose of the issues considered by it. The Tribunal, in respect of the above said issue, took the view that the same requires reconsideration at the end of the AO by considering the amendment brought in sec. 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Hence the Tribunal found it not necessary to address various contentions urged in that regard. Accordingly we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a view in this matter and the same cannot be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act.
It is an undisputed fact that a counsel named Ms. Sheetal Shah appeared on behalf of the assessee on 4th September, 2015 and hence her name was marked on that date. With regard to the submission made with regard to the time gap between the date of hearing and the date of order, the same may be outside the scope of sec. 254(2) of the Act. However, we notice that the Tribunal has considered all relevant facts necessary to adjudicate the issue from the angle from which it was considered.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1678 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Disqualification of Directors - Section 164 (2) (a) r/w Section 167 (1) (a) of the Companies Act 2013 - principles of res-judicata - retrospective effect or not - declaration of cease to continue as directors.
Whether this CA is hit by resjudicata or not? - HELD THAT:- It is not permissible in the light of the principle laid under Section 11 (IV) of CPC to seek removal of them as directors on another legal ground. No doubt it is true that if new legislation comes and gives new jurisdiction with retrospective action relating back to the acts in the past, it is altogether different situation. But when new Act has been in even before filing earlier CA 201/2015 for the removal of R4&R5 as directors, it can't be taken out separately subsequently after waiting until earlier application was dealt with - the applicant cannot take out a sentence from the order saying that since he is given liberty to seek interlocutory order on additional facts, he is entitled raise on the same facts by invoking another legal point. The applicant ought to have raised all these legal scores in the former application itself - thus, the relief sought by the applicant in this CA is held as hit by constructive resjudicata.
Whether the disqualification set forth in Section 164(2)(a) r/w 167(1) (a) of the Act 2013 has retrospective effect or not? - HELD THAT:- In the present case non-filing of financial statements before this enactment would not tantamount to disqualification to become Director or to continue as Director, new enactment made non-filing of financial statements for three consecutive years as disqualification and amounts to an offence only to the act after 1.4.2014 - If this disqualification is construed as applicable to the past acts, it is obviously unfair to the people conducted the affairs of the company under the impression that non-filing of financial statements for three years is not a default and not an offence - Therefore, this provision has to be read as applicable to the situations where non-filing has started, at the most in the past and continuing while this enactment has come to into existence and also to future non-filing but not to be considered as applicable to the past acts for it is an established proposition that an Act has to be considered retroactive only when it has been explicitly mentioned in the Act - decided against petitioner.
Whether the applicant can seek NCLT to declare that R4 & R5 cease to continue as directors in terms of Sections 164 (2) (a) r/w 167 (l)(a) of the Act 2013 in the CP filed u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956/u/s 241 & 242 of the Companies Act 2013 or not? - HELD THAT:- This applicant himself sought for holding AGMs for the years 2009-10 to 2013-2014, accordingly meetings were held, resolutions were passed by supplying all the statements after audit, therefore, if at all financial statements are not filed for the years mentioned, it can't be said as an act prejudicial to the interest of the applicants - this Bench has not found any merit in the argument the petitioner counsel taken out for declaring that R4&R5 ceased to continue directors of the company for it is in violation of the provision of law.
Application dismissed.
........
|
