|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1398 Records
-
2020 (10) TMI 1258
Permission to travel abroad - appellant sought the leave of the High Court to do so since as a Green Card holder, it was mandatory for him to return to the US within a stipulated period of his departure from that country - allegation is that the appellant has not complied with the conditions on which he was granted interim bail - offence of fabrication of power of attorney - forging the signature of his brother - whether the appellant should be permitted to travel to the US for eight weeks? - HELD THAT:- The details which have been furnished to the Court by the appellant, indicate that he has regularly travelled between the US and India on as many as sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020. He has maintained a close contact with India. The view of the High Court that he has no contact with India is contrary to the material on record. The lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of the present case be a bar on the travel of the appellant to the US for eight weeks to attend to the business of revalidating his Green Card. The conditions which a court imposes for the grant of bail – in this case temporary bail – have to balance the public interest in the enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of the accused. The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of investigation and eventually to ensure a fair trial. The conditions which are imposed by the court must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed by the grant of permission as sought in this case must be carefully evaluated in each case.
Having regard to the genesis of the dispute as well as the issue as to whether the appellant is likely to flee from justice if he were to be permitted to travel to the US, we find, on the basis of the previous record of the appellant, that there is no reason or justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks. The appellant is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport. While it is true that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant, that, in our view, should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US, where he is a resident since 1985, particularly when it has been drawn to the attention of the High Court and this Court that serious consequences would ensue in terms of the invalidation of the Green Card if the appellant were not permitted to travel. The record indicates the large amount of litigation between the family of the appellant and the complainant.
The passport of the appellant shall be handed over to the appellant to facilitate his travel, subject to the condition that he shall deposit it with the investigating officer immediately on his return - Application allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1257
Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - HELD THAT:- We dismiss this appeal as well as the Cross Objection as withdrawn with the condition that both the Revenue appeal as well as the Cross Objection shall be restored in case the authorities do not approve the application filed by the assessee for resolution of the dispute under “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1256
Seeking extension of time period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Section 40(2) of CIRP Regulation and Section 12(2) of IBC 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is seen from that report, a resolution was passed to file an application under Section 40(2) of CIRP Regulation and as per Section 12(2) of IBC 2016 for a time period extension of 45 days with effect from 12.10.2020 to 26.11.2020 so as to consider and evaluate the revised Resolution Plan.
The prayer for extension period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for another 45 days with effect from 12.10.2020 is allowed - The Resolution Professional is directed to complete the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on or before 26.11.2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1255
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - Non-performing assets - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- As per the practice MCA Data of the Corporate Debtor is required to be filed alongwith application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which was not attached initially, hence, this matter was fixed for clarification for filing of the same. The MCA Data filed by the Financial Creditor showed an open charge in favour of the Bank of Baroda (the Sole Secured Financial Creditor). Such loan has been taken in the year October 2018. It is also noted that the Bank has initiated proceedings against the Corporate Debtor for recovery of outstanding debt after declaring the account of the Corporate Debtor as "Non-Performing Assets" on 02.08.2019, which also means that default in repayment of interest on cash credit and/or principal borrower amount happened almost immediately after getting the money from the bank.
It is evident that this is a case where Bank has classified account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA within a period of less than one year after sanction and disbursement of the same and that too in a case of facility of nature of cash credit, which is given for working capital requirements of business entity. Such action by Bank by itself raises serious questions about the credibility and intention of the Corporate Debtor.
When the factual position as regards to the financial transaction between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor coupled with the financial facility obtained by the Corporate Debtor by the Bank and declaration of the same as NPA are read together, the only inevitable conclusion which could be reached without any difficulty is that the Financial Creditor has helped the Corporate Debtor to obtain loan from the Bank particularly when no material of whatsoever nature has been brought on record by the Financial Creditor to show that money was indeed given to Corporate Debtor for genuine business purpose and it made sincere efforts to realise its money which was due.
Application dismissed - List this issue for hearing on 14.12.2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1254
Scheme for reduction of Share Capital - objection of the 3.59% of minority shareholders as a whole - legitimate expectation to be adequately compensated with regard to valuation of shares - rights of minority shareholders - HELD THAT:- The objectors have to be distinguished in three different groups (i) 9 Objectors have acquired the shares of the Petitioner Company after the EGM was conducted i.e. they did not hold any shares as on the date of the EGM, (ii) 11 Objectors, in aggregate holding 9,148 equity shares of the Petitioner Company as on the date of the EGM, have not attended and / or voted at the EGM, and (iii) 2 Objectors, namely, Mr. Puneet Kumar and Ms. Sangeeta Gupta, jointly holding 20,205 equity shares in the Petitioner Company, voted in favour of the Resolution approving the reduction of the share capital. Therefore the moot question arises as to the locus standi of such objectors who have acquired shares post the EGM and shareholders who voted in favor of the resolution, be that as it may, we consider the objection raised by the entire group.
This bench is only concerned with the first issue of objection of the 3.59% of minority shareholders as a whole, is with regard to their legitimate expectation to be adequately compensated with regard to valuation of shares. The rights of minority shareholders qua the Valuation of shares as per the two Valuers and the Fairness report has to be examined.
Method of valuation and assumptions carried out by the Valuers - HELD THAT:- The details captured in the two valuation report depict the assumptions and calculations considered by them, while concluding the share price of the petitioner company.
Whether the proposed scheme has the effect of wiping out entirely a class of shareholders, namely, the non-promoter shareholders, though on payment of certain compensation in view of the objection raised by them and whether such selective reduction can be allowed? - HELD THAT:- Section 66 of the 2013 Act expressly permits companies to undertake reduction of their share capital in any manner, i.e. including by way of selective reduction of share capital, as laid down by numerous High Courts - Given the facts of the present case and that the objectors being class of Non-Promoter shareholders who have been offered to exit at a certain price as fixed by the valuation of shares and in consideration of the several decisions cited above, it is concluded that selective reduction is permissible under Sec.66 of the Companies Act.
Objection raised by RD is that the report of ROC, Pune that no complaint has been received, but one M. Punit Kumar regarding Syngenta has complained that the company is paying only 43.4 % of Fair Market Price and cheating the small shareholders, therefore the company is seeking to bump of entire 12,373 Public Shareholders/11,81,036 Equity Shares consisting of 3.59% at an offer price ₹ 2,445/- Per Share - HELD THAT:- Such selective reduction of capital is not within the letter and spirit of Section 66 of the Act. This is against the public interest as the present value/status of the company is also due to public participation. The selective reduction is detrimental to the public participation in equity market. The objections are untenable in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts.
The objection of the RD cannot be accepted on two grounds 1) that they have not considered the Valuation Report produced by the Petitioner Company 2) The dictum of several Courts where they have allowed the Selective Reduction in view of corporate governance and democratic rights of the Company to reduce its share capital by calling it an Domestic/internal decision of the company.
The petitioner company has complied with the statutory compliances by sending notices to the Regional Director, Western Regional Ministry of Corporate Affairs (RD) and the Registrar of Company, Pune. No notice has been issued to SEBI as the petitioner company is not a listed company. The notice of hearing of the company petition was published in Indian Express (Pune Edition) and Lok Satta (Pune Edition) on 06.02.2018, the company does not have any deposits as certified by its auditors. The petitioner has no secured creditors and notice of the petition was served upon each of the unsecured creditors.
Application for reduction of share capital is allowed subject to the directions issued.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1253
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - omission on the part of the assessee for not taking into account of the interest accumulated on the FDs maintained with various banks - HELD THAT:- When individuals / HUF maintain Fixed Deposits in piecemeal with various banks, the interest earned on the fixed deposits might be lost sight off as the interest gets automatically accumulated with the deposits. The need to evaluate those Fixed Deposits will arise only when funds are required for a specific purpose. In the case of the assessee-HUF it appears that the assessee took stock of the Fixed Deposits when they were in the process of purchasing the house property and the interest earned by those Fixed Deposit was inadvertently omitted to be taken into account.
It is only an unintended omission on the part of the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that the decisions relied on by the ld. DR are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases before us. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) and further direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty imposed as per section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1252
Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - pendency of petition - account of Corporate Debtor declared as NPA on account of default - HELD THAT:- List after three weeks.
In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file a statement giving the schedule of repayment of loan.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1251
Refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents - HELD THAT:- Subrule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit - Subrule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation.
Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit - the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1250
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- Subject to deposit of ₹ 3,50,000/-, in the Registry of this Court within eight weeks from today, in addition to any other amount, if any, deposited in the trial Court, sentence imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment dated 5.5.2016 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP in Criminal Complaint No. 198-1/2014 and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mand - The bail bonds, so furnished by applicant/petitioner, shall be transmitted to the Registry of this Court for placing the same on record. Alteration/vacation/modification on motion.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1249
Grant of default bail/statutory bail - condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, valid or not - HELD THAT:- The High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of ₹ 8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit ₹ 7,00,000/-.
The only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, and within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. - reliance placed in the case of RAKESH KUMAR PAUL VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM [2017 (8) TMI 1526 - SUPREME COURT].
Direction to appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation - HELD THAT:- The same is also unsustainable, as it is too harsh. Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail on breach of such condition.
The direction to appellant to deposit ₹ 8,00,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, while releasing the appellant on default bail, is hereby quashed and set aside - the appellant shall co-operate with the investigating agency and shall report the concerned police station as and when called for investigation/interrogation and on non-cooperation, the consequences including cancellation of the bail shall follow - appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1248
Validity of revised proposition notice dated 16.03.2020 issued by respondent No.3 under Section 39(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 - during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner has passed an order dated 25.09.2020 confirming the amount demanded in the impugned revised proposition notice issued at Annexure-A - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1247
Permission for withdrawal of application - The applicant has been granted default bail with certain terms and conditions including the condition to deposit certain amount and, hence, the applicant has filed challenged the said condition by filing Special Criminal Application - HELD THAT:- The present application stands disposed of as having become infructuous.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1246
Reduction of Share Capital - the Applicant present with this Application for amending the Company Petition for Reduction of Share Capital from ₹ 600 Crores to ₹ 300 Crore - HELD THAT:- On being satisfied with the submissions and explanation given in the pleadings, this Application is allowed.
Accordingly this Application is allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1245
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Assessee submitted that interest expenditure incurred by the assessee should not have been disallowed under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D since no part of the borrowed funds were used by the assessee for making investments and prayed for deleting the disallowance of expenditure - HELD THAT:- AO mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee made a submission that the assessee is having capital account balance of ₹ 6,25,90,602/-, but the Assessing Officer has not appreciated the said facts and nothing was discussed in his order. Thus, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that he shall examine the balance sheet of the assessee and ascertain as to whether as on the date of investment, the assessee has sufficient own funds or not.
If the assessee is having own funds as on the date of investment, then the assessee is entitled to claim exemption and there is no need of disallowance under section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii).
Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) - Assessing Officer is directed to consider only those investments for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year under consideration as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) in view of the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] and to pass detailed order on both counts. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1244
Grant of Default Bail - time limitation - application for grant of default bail is made on expiry of the period of 90 days - Section 167(2) of Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- On the facts of the present case, the High Court was wholly incorrect in stating that once the challan was presented by the prosecution on 25.03.2019 as an application was filed by the Appellant on 26.03.2019, the Appellant is not entitled to default bail. First and foremost, the High Court has got the dates all wrong. The application that was made for default bail was made on or before 25.02.2019 and not 26.03.2019. The charge sheet was filed on 26.03.2019 and not 25.03.2019. The fact that this application was wrongly dismissed on 25.02.2019 would make no difference and ought to have been corrected in revision. The sole ground for dismissing the application was that the time of 90 days had already been extended by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala by his order dated 13.02.2019. This Order was correctly set aside by the Special Court by its judgment dated 25.03.2019, holding that under the UAPA read with the NIA Act, the Special Court alone had jurisdiction to extend time to 180 days under the first proviso in Section 43-D(2)(b). The fact that the Appellant filed yet another application for default bail on 08.04.2019, would not mean that this application would wipe out the effect of the earlier application that had been wrongly decided. We must not forget that we are dealing with the personal liberty of an Accused under a statute which imposes drastic punishments. The right to default bail, as has been correctly held by the judgments of this Court, are not mere statutory rights under the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code, but is part of the procedure established by law Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is, therefore, a fundamental right granted to an Accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to Section 167(2) are fulfilled.
The Appellant will now be entitled to be released on "default bail" Under Section 167(2) of the Code, as amended by Section 43-D of the UAPA - Appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1243
Testamentary suit for grant of probate of the alleged last will - submission is that the APLC can only decide upon and regulate the voting power within the limit of the voting rights as regards the shares which are referable to the estate of the testatrix enlisted in the affidavit of assets - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the position of Administrator pendente lite (APL) in terms of Section 247 of the Succession Act is that the APL represents the estate of the deceased for all purposes, except distribution of the estate. APL shall be subject to the immediate control of the probate Court and shall act under its direction. Except to the limit it is circumscribed by the last limb of Section 247, the control of the Court over the APL and the extent of its authority to issue directions to the APL spreads through the scope and extent of the statutory purpose for which APL can be appointed in terms of Section 247.
It is fundamental that the eligibility of a share-holder; either if it is only one share or bulk of shares and stocks; the voting rights and the involvement in the company on the strength of the shares would stand regulated, primarily by Sections 47 and 88 of the Companies Act - The power of the Probate Court under Section 247 of the Succession Act necessarily includes the power to regulate and permit such shares which are in the domain of commercial activity to be utilised to generate appropriate income and to better utilise the same in the best interest of the affairs of the estate of PDB, which would ultimately reflect on the end beneficiaries, which also includes charitable trust, educational institutions and other such activities.
The prayer for ad interim stay of the judgement and order impugned dated September 18, 2020 is declined.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1242
Permission for withdrawal of application - applicant requests to permit the applicant to withdraw this application with a liberty to approach this Court if investigation is not completed within a period of three months - HELD THAT:- Permission, as sought for; stands granted.
Application stands disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1241
Maintainability of petition - challenge against assessment order - Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order, but the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before that Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. In this context, it has to be recapitulated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER [1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction where it was held that It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute.
This Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1240
TP Adjustment - arm's length price of finished goods exported to the AE - MAM selection - export of finished goods to the AEs, the Transfer Pricing Officer noticed that the assessee had benchmarked such transaction by using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) on aggregate basis - TPO did not accept the contention of the assessee and proceeded to benchmark the transaction by applying CUP method - Assessee submitted by the assessee that CUP cannot be treated as the most appropriate method considering the different economic and geographical condition between the AES and the non-AEs - whether the domestic sales can be applied as CUP for determining the arm's length price of export sales? - HELD THAT:- It is fairly well settled, CUP method requires strict comparability. It cannot be denied that the pricing of a product varies on the basis of geographical location. Thus, primarily, the price of products sold in domestic market cannot be compared with the price of the product sold in foreign country due to various factors. Therefore, if the Transfer Pricing Officer selects CUP as the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction, it is his duty to find out and bring on record price charged for uncontrolled transactions carried out under similar circumstances. If, suitable comparable uncontrolled transaction is unavailable, CUP method cannot be applied.
As further noticed, during the year under consideration assessee had sold 34 different products to both overseas AES as welt as domestic unrelated parties. Out of the 34 products sold, Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the price of 16 products sold to AES to be at arm's length, since, the price charged to AES is more than the price charged to non-AEs. In case of 18 products only She Transfer Pricing Officer has made adjustment as the price charged to AES is less than the price charged to non-AEs. Thus, it appears, the Transfer Pricing Officer has adopted a very selective approach while applying CUP.
Transfer Pricing Officer has only allowed volume adjustment on purely ad-hoc basis, that too, only in respect of a single product while ignoring various other products wherein volume difference between AE and non-AE transaction is substantial. Similarly, assessee's contention that the price of products insofar as sales made to the AE and non-AE would vary due to timing difference has not been properly considered. The various adjustments which are required to be made have been demonstrated before us by the learned counsel for the assessee by furnishing charts. In our view, all these factors have to be taken into consideration, even, while applying CUP method. One more submission of the assessee is that the DRP has allowed adjustment on account of marketing/allied cost. However, while computing such adjustment, the Assessing Officer has not taken note of marketing personnel cost. We find substantial merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel that matter needs to be restored to the Assessing Officer for examining afresh -These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
Adjustment made on account of payment made towards intra-group service - assessee has paid an amount towards marketing, administrative and logistic service and for availing information technology service - HELD THAT:- The Transfer Pricing Officer has simply proceeded to benchmark the transaction on a purely ad-hoc/estimate basis without following any one of the methods prescribed under section 92C of the Act. It is patent and obvious from the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer that he has not determined the arm's length price by applying either CUP or any other approved method. Had the benchmarking been done under CUP method, the Transfer Pricing Officer should have brought on record at least a few comparable uncontrolled transactions to demonstrate that the payment made by the assessee towards intra- group services is not at arm's length. Whereas, the Transfer Pricing Officer has not brought on record even a single comparable uncontrolled transaction to demonstrate that the price charged by the assessee is not at arm's length. on the contrary, it is tell-tale from the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer that he has proceeded to benchmark the transaction purely on estimate basis by applying man- hour salary rate of a single employee in case of marketing, administrative and logistic services. Similar is Vie situation in case of IT services, wherein, the Transfer Pricing Officer has estimated the arm's length price at 30% of the amount paid.
The aforesaid method of estimating the arm's length price is not in terms with the provisions contained under section 92C r/w rule 10B, hence, opposed to law. Transfer Pricing Officer has simply estimated the arm's length price of the transaction on estimate basis without applying any one of the approved methods. This cannot be accepted. There is umpteenth number of judicial precedents, wherein, it has been held that determination of arm's length price has to be done by applying any one of the methods prescribed under section 92C r/w rule 10B.
Thus adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer to the arm's length price of payment made towards Intra-group services is unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the aforesaid adjustment. Grounds are allowed.
Levy of interest under section 234A - As per assessee since the return of income was filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act there is no question of levy of interest under the aforesaid provision - HELD THAT:- We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and if it is found that the return of income for the impugned assessment year was filed within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act, no interest under section 234A of the Act can be le vied. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1239
Permission for withdrawal of petition - writ petition filed as a public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of as unconditionally withdrawn. However, we make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the issues raised on the merits of the petition. All the pending applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
............
|
9911796707
