|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 2066 Records
-
2017 (11) TMI 2009
Composition scheme for Works Contract - Works Contract Service or not - benefit of abatement as provided under the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT:- For ascertaining the fact of entitlement to the abatement benefit and consideration of the activities under the works contract service, the Tribunal in M/S S&S TECHNOCRAFTS PVT. LTD., M/S. AHLUWALIA CONSTRUCTION GROUP VERSUS CST, DELHI [2016 (7) TMI 1663 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has remanded the matter to the original authority for deciding the issues afresh in line with the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI & OTHERS. [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT].
Therefore, the present matter should also be remanded to the original authority, since period in dispute in this case is subsequent to the period, for which the decision had been rendered by the Tribunal in M/S S&S TECHNOCRAFTS PVT. LTD., M/S. AHLUWALIA CONSTRUCTION GROUP VERSUS CST, DELHI. Further, we also find that the other submissions made by the appellant were not considered by the authorities below in the respective orders.
The matter remanded to the original authorities for Denovo adjudication in line with the above observations - the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2008
Maintainability of appeal against circulars issued to the stock exchanges in relation to all the companies exclusively listed on de-recognized/ non-operational stock exchanges - orders under regulation 28(2) of the Delisting Regulations - Exit route for the shareholders of the companies exclusively listed on de-recognized/ non-operational stock exchanges - Order seeking direction SEBI to ensure that the companies listed exclusively on regional stock exchanges get listed either on the Bombay Stock Exchange or on the National Stock Exchange automatically - HELD THAT:- Merely because SEBI has referred the orders passed under regulation 28(2) of the Delisting Regulations as ‘circulars’ cannot be a ground to deny the appellant his right to file an appeal against the said circulars which are in fact orders passed under the Delisting Regulations.
In our opinion, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is wholly misconceived.
Impugned circulars issued by SEBI contain administrative directions given by SEBI to the stock exchanges in relation to all companies which are exclusively listed on de-recognized / non-operational stock exchanges. Since the directions contained in the said circulars are not restricted to any particular company but are generally applicable to all the companies exclusively listed on de-recognized/ non-operational stock exchanges, it is abundantly clear that the impugned circulars are nothing but the administrative circulars issued in the interest of the investors in the securities market.
None of the companies to whom the directions contained in the impugned circulars apply have deemed it appropriate to challenge the impugned circulars and the appellant who is an investor in those companies has deemed it appropriate to challenge the impugned circulars. Assuming that the appellant has any grievance against the impugned circulars, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of NSDL [2017 (3) TMI 1061 - SUPREME COURT] proper course to be adopted by the appellant is to take appropriate steps in judicial review proceedings and not by way of an appeal before this Tribunal.
Argument of the appellant that the impugned circulars constitute orders under regulation 28(2) of the Delisting Regulations is totally frivolous to say the least. By circular dated 22.05.2014 SEBI directed the stock exchanges to give various options specified therein to the companies exclusively listed on de-recognized/ non-operational stock exchanges to get listed on the nationwide exchanges.
In view of the representation made by some of the companies exclusively listed on derecognized/ non-operational exchanges, SEBI issued circular dated 17.04.2015 thereby giving extension of time to all the companies exclusively listed on de-recognized non-operational stock exchanges to get listed on nationwide stock exchanges. Thus, the appellant is wholly unjustified in arguing that the impugned circulars constitute orders under regulation 28(2) of the Delisting Regulations. Conduct of the appellant in pursuing the appeal by raising such frivolous grounds inspite of the decision of the Apex Court in NSDL (Supra) is reprehensible.
The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 10,000/- to be paid by the appellant.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2007
Nature of land sold - agricultural land as exempted u/s 2(14)(iii)(b) - Whether land was falling within 8 kms of the municipal limit? - HELD THAT:- Whether the distance of the land in question is more than 8 kilometer on the outskirts of Jaipur city is required to be re-verified by the Tribunal taking into consideration, the notification dt. 6th January, 1994 issued by the Income Tax Department and judgment of this Court in [2017 (9) TMI 1161 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]. The Tribunal will consider both the notification and judgment and if required make a request to Revenue Authority not below Deputy Collector to verify the distance from the outskirts of Jaipur to the land in question.
The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal only with a view to verify the distance.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits and it will be open for the Tribunal to reconsider the same and take an independent view after taking into account the new facts after verification and it will not being influenced by the decision of this Court.
Prima facie we are of the opinion, the proceedings which are initiated at Calcutta pursuant to our order seems to be misconstrued by the department. We take a serious note about the notice issued by the competent authority and also the lower authority requesting the higher authority u/s 263 which is also surprising to us.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2006
Nature of expenditure - advertisement expenses, business promotion, brokerage and commission and software developing charges - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- The facts are that the assessee is developing a project and for which the assessee has incurred the cost of the project on the land and its development charges. The same have been capitalized as work in progress by the assessee. Certain expenditure such as advertisement expenditure, brokerage expenditure, business promotion expenditure and software development charges were not capitalized by the assessee, but claimed as revenue expenditure. The guidance has been provided by the Institute of chartered accountants of India for accounting in case of real estate projects. These guidelines are undisputedly applicable to the facts of the case before us.
None of the expenditure incurred by the assessee were not found to be not genuine. Looking from the another angle about the expenditure claimed by the assessee, it would be apparent that if the assessee follows the completed contract method, then the assessee would be carrying on the cost of the project for the period till the project is sold. Naturally the cost of the project would be increased by these amounts and the revenue is duty bound to grant the deduction of this cost of project at the time of sale. Therefore in that particular scenario, the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee would be allowed to the assessee is a deduction in that particular year. If the deduction is allowed to the assessee during this year and the assessee has incurred loss assessee is duty bound to set of this loss within a specified number of assessment year specified under section 72 of the Income Tax Act, i.e. 8 years. If the assessee cannot set of these losses during that particular period then the assessee forgoes the tax advantage of claim of the loss. Therefore, even if the expenditure is allowed to the assessee for this year as deduction, it does not make the case of the revenue at any disadvantageous position, in fact, it puts assessee into some disadvantage
On the identical facts and circumstances of the case, the coordinate bench in case [2016 (11) TMI 709 - ITAT MUMBAI] for assessment year 2008-09 has allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 37 (1) on account of advertisement expenses, brokerage expenses.
Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench we also allow the claim of the assessee with respect to the deduction of advertisement expenses, business promotion expenses, brokerage and commission and software development charges. Furthermore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A), hence, we confirm the same and direct the Ld. assessing officer to delete the addition - ground in the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2005
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee objecting to the reopening on the reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) - HELD THAT:- Assessee’s objection after going through the reasons recorded for reopening, was not done at all by the AO before passing the reassessment order which is per se against the binding direction in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] wherein their Lordships held that on receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objection to issuance of the notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
In the instant case, a perusal of the order sheet of AO does not disclose that AO had disposed of the objection raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order.
We note that the assessee vide letter had in fact objected to the reopening of filing six pages letter and this fact is corroborated by the AO himself in the order sheet maintained by him and we note that the AO has not passed any speaking order to dispose of the objection raised by the assessee.
As per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction is bound to be acted upon by the courts and other authorities. The AO has not cared to dispose of the objections raised by the assessee as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As stated above, from the order sheet entries it is very clear that the AO did not dispose of the objection of the assessee as directed in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] which makes the reassessment order bad in the eyes of law and is non-est in the eyes of law for flouting the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2004
Revival of sick industry - providing corpus fund - benefit of rehabilitation under the Bihar State Micro and Small Enterprises Rehabilitation Act, 2008 - contention of appellant is that once the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated and pending, the Writ Court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- Once the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were pending, the learned Writ Court has no jurisdiction to interfere into the matter so far as it pertains to the right of International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) is concerned.
The learned Writ Court in the facts and circumstances should not have interfered into the matter and issue the mandamus as done, instead, the appellant International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (IARC) should have been granted liberty to proceed with the proceedings initiated by them under the SARFAESI Act and as the decision of the Apex Committee with regard to direction to the Canara Bank was taken behind their back for the purpose of considering rehabilitation package, the matter should have been remitted back to the Apex Level Committee to reconsider the matter instead directing to implement a decision which was not taken in accordance to the requirement of law, i.e. with the consent of all concerned, and even without taking note of various objections, including the objection of Canara Bank based on TEV report dated 30.05.2015, and various other issues involved in the matter.
Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2003
Availment of remission of duty suo motto - leaked and burst bottles - manufacture of Water, Aerated Water, Soda Water, Fruit Pulp etc. - month of February 2008 and March 2008 - demand of duty with interest and penalties - applicability of Board's Circular dated 08.09.1971, with regard to allowable limit of breakage of bottles - HELD THAT:- The Board Circular is binding on the Revenue Officer as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions - Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-VII [2012 (8) TMI 409 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] where it was held that the allowance as indicated in the Board s circular does not relate to breakage owing to pressure-filling with CO2 and is relevant to breakage in course of handling. Even in that case, the physical verification vis-`-vis quantification of breakage is mandatory. Since the same could not be done, the benefit arising out of the Board s circular could not be extended.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2002
Exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab)/10(23C) (iv) - appellant assessee is registered and granted exemption u/s 12AA vide certificate on 7.11.2007 and carrying on their activity only for the purpose of publication of the educational books which are given to the educational institutions - assessee appellant is an autonomous body established for the purpose of publication of books in Hindi language for post graduate student of Universities in India as per the Education Policy decision of the Ministry of Education & Social Welfare, Department of Education, Government of India - HELD THAT:- Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy is established by the State Government to see that the books are available to the students of the educational institutions at the grass root level, therefore, while considering the matter, we have considered that mainly the substantive amount out of receipts as received by the assessee from State Government by way of subsidy. Even if, name of the institution i.e. Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy is considered, it is established that it is for the purpose of publication of Hindi Granth i.e. for education. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, in view of decisions referred by Mr. Ranka, this is an educational institution activity.
We are of the opinion that this academy is running only with a view to publish educational books and we have no hesitation in accepting the submissions of Mr. Ranka that this is only for the purpose of academy which is educational in nature.
Assessee will be entitled for the benefit u/s 10(23)(iiiab). Even from the table, looking to the turnover, the profit is negligible, therefore, it is clear that the institution has no profit motive. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2001
Undisclosed investment in jewellery - submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that he and his wife have received the above jewellery at the time of marriage - Scope of CBDT Circular No.19 of 2016 - HELD THAT:- Since in the instant case, admittedly the jewellery found in the Locker was only 313.600 grams which is much less than 500 grams as per CBDT Circular No.19 of 2016, therefore CIT(A) should not have insisted for Wealth Tax Return or bills and vouchers to explain the source of such investment in jewellery and should have deleted the addition made by the AO - Although the above circular is for non-seizure of gold jewellery etc. however, various Courts and the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal are taking a liberal view on the basis of this circular and are allowing credit for such gold/jewellery as explained. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2000
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT excluding the value of investments not yielding exempt income in the year under consideration for computing the average value of investments as required for working of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Whether CIT(A) has erred in holding that earning of exempt income from investment in touchstone for making disallowance u/s 14A in-spite of fact that section 14A deals with disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income? - HELD THAT:- As decided in case of Cheminvest Ltd.[2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] while calculating the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii), the average value of investment is worked out by taking into account the investments in those shares only which have yielded tax free income to the appellant by way of dividend during the relevant period.
As the issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chem Investment (supra), we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1999
Deduction u/s.80IB(10) - 'housing projects' prior to 01.04.2005 - Whether there was no clause (d) earlier and there is no express provision in this sub-section dealing with the consequence of having a commercial establishment within a housing project? - Whether Section 80IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies to a housing project approved before 31.03.2005 but completed on or after 01.04.2005? - HELD THAT:- We are satisfied that the learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue is justified in submitting that these appeals are covered as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarkar Builders [2015 (5) TMI 555 - SUPREME COURT] and therefore, these appeals may be permitted to be withdrawn.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1998
Depreciation on the “Right to collect toll”, being, an intangible asset - whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on “License to collect toll‟ considering it as an intangible asset in terms of section u/s. 32(1) (ii)? - HELD THAT:- As decided in Ashoka Highways (Bhandara) [2017 (10) TMI 579 - ITAT PUNE] that the cost of constructing road was akin to “Right to collect toll”, being, an intangible asset. The ld. DR fairly admitted the position in this regard. Respectfully following the same in parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the said claim. - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1997
Correct method of accounting - whether profit on the project should not be taxed on percentage completion method? -AO following percentage completion method as against the project completion method adopted by the assessee - AR submitted that the assessee has been following project completion method for recognizing the revenue wherein cost of land, construction and other expenses incurred every year is added and carried forward as work in progress and advances received from the customers are shown in the liability side in the balance sheet - AR held that post amendment every assessee has to follow either cash or mercantile system of accounting u/s 145 and that no accounting standards has so far been notified u/s 145(2) of the Act in regard to developers and builders - CIT-A deleted the addition made by the AO on account of profit earned by the assessee during the accounting year under consideration - HELD THAT:- The co-ordinate Bench has already decided the said issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 [2016 (12) TMI 1538 - ITAT MUMBAI] by following the decision rendered in CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. [2008 (2) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] , CIT vs. Manish Build Well Private Limited [2011 (11) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and decision of co-ordinate Bench in Avadhesh Builder [2009 (12) TMI 665 - ITAT MUMBAI]. - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1996
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - liability of signatory of firm as well as liability on the firm along with its partners - Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ETC. [2016 (4) TMI 532 - SUPREME COURT] observed that an allegation in the complaint to the effect that the respondents being the Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director and wholetime Director were and are the persons responsible and in charge of day-to-day business of Accused 1 viz. when the offence was committed is sufficient for prosecution of the respondents. However, in the present case, the allegation is that the firm along with its partners is responsible. Here there is no allegation that the applicants are in charge and responsible for day to day business of the firm.
The basic allegation required for prosecuting the applicants is missing in the complaint and the applicants cannot be prosecuted merely because they are the partners in the firm - the complaint filed against the applicants under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is liable to be dismissed as it lacks basic allegation against the applicants.
Application allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1995
Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - officers of DRI are proper officer to issue SCN or not - HELD THAT:- The fact of the case regarding the issue of show-cause notices and adjudications are linked to preliminary objection with reference to jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, is admitted. As regards the objection of the Revenue, to list the appeals again for some other day, it is noted that in the face of the admitted facts as above, and the issue involved is one of preliminary legal point of issue, we note the appeal themselves can be disposed of, as there could be no submissions on merits of the case, from either side. In view of the admitted position and pending legal dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is found that all these appeals are to be allowed by way of remand by setting aside the impugned orders.
Reliance can be placed in the case of ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD. VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [2017 (8) TMI 1639 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that It has been ruled by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the D.R.I. Officers are not competent to issue the show cause notice for the period prior to 08.04.2011. In similar such cases, various Benches of the Tribunal such as, Delhi, Chennai & Calcutta have set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for deciding the issue of jurisdiction and thereafter to decide on the merits of the case, upon pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangali Impex.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1994
Validity of sale deed - it is stated that the petitioner by playing fraud got executed a registered sale deed in her favour from Ratanbai with respect to the suit property - plaintiffs were having knowledge of the sale deed or not - present suit filed nearly after lapse of 6 years - whether the suit is barred by time or not? - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts reveal that plaintiff No. 1 himself was a witness to the sale deed in question. The wife of the plaintiff No. 1 was again witness to the sale deed in question which was executed on 23.1.2010. A certified copy was also obtained by them on 16.7.2010 and undisputedly, the civil suit has been filed on 3.2.2016.
This Court in the case of LEELADHAR, NARENDRA KUMAR, UMRAOBAI VERSUS ANWAR PATEL, SMT. RAMIBAI, DALIPSINGH, MOHANSINGH [2016 (3) TMI 1437 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that It is also clear that the present suit filed in the year 2011 to challenge the sale deeds of the year 1995 i. e. after 16 years is clearly barred by time, while the period of limitation is only 3 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners' name in the revenue record were also recorded in the year 1995. Thus, the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is clearly barred by limitation.
In light of the aforesaid judgment it can be safely gathered that the plaintiffs were having knowledge of the sale deed which was executed in the year 2010 and therefore, as the limitation provided is only three years for challenging the sale deed, the issue framed by the trial Court in respect of limitation has to be answered in favour of the defendants.
As civil suit was filed after six years from the date of execution of the sale deed praying declaration of sale deed as null and void, the suit was certainly barred by limitation in light of Article 59 of the Limitation Act - the revision stands allowed and the suit is dismissed as it is barred by limitation.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1993
Wrongful transfer of Petitioners' shares in favour of the Respondents - Sections 111, 397, 398, 402, 403 & 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 r/w Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 - difference of opinion - HELD THAT:- The basic principle of Justice Delivery System is that a Court or a Tribunal, while passing an order is not only required to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties but is also required to give good reasons based on record/evidence. It is also required to show that the order is passed after being satisfied itself on issues raised by the parties - In Indian Judiciary, Justice Delivery System including provisions of Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal is required to give hearing in an open Court. Once such hearing is given in the open Court, the Court or the Tribunal, while passing an order is also required to pronounce order in the open Court.
Under sub-Section (3) of Section 421, the Tribunal is required to send the copy of every order passed under Section 420, which is also required to be followed in a petition filed under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 and other petitions. The Principle of Natural Justice is also require that the parties should be informed of the order pronounced by the Court/Tribunal.
The Tribunal is required to pronounce its order or deliver its judgment on hearing the parties in the open Court - The case is remitted to the Hon'ble President, National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, who in his turn will direct the Registry to provide free certified copies of the difference of opinion/order passed by two Hon'ble Members comprising Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Member(Technical), both dated 30th September 2016, and the terms of reference framed by one of the Hon'ble Member dated 30th September, 2016. The Hon'ble President thereafter will refer the matter to a Third Hon'ble Member, other than the Third Hon'ble Member(Judicial), to whom it was earlier referred, who after notice to the parties will fix a date of hearing and on hearing the parties, will pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1992
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Corporate applicant - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Applicant Company itself can be a corporate applicant to lodge application with the adjudicating authority for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of itself on account of default in payment. In the present case the director of the applicant company duly authorised to do so has filed the instant application under Section 10 of the Code on behalf of the applicant company - In compliance of Section 10 (3) (a) of the Code read with Annex-V of Form 6 of the Rules, the applicant company has filed copies of audited financial statements of the Applicant Company for the last two financial years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17. In addition, copy of provisional financial statement of the Applicant Company for the current financial year made up to a date not earlier than fourteen days from the date of the application, i.e. from 01.04.2017 to 10.10.2017 has also been filed.
It is the case of the applicant that the corporate applicant has availed the loan from Financial Creditor, i.e. Karnataka Bank which was renewed from time to time and finally ₹ 3,50,00,000/- in the form of cash credit and ₹ 2,50,00,000/- as Term loan facility were sanctioned. It is submitted that the applicant company has suffered a huge loss of ₹ 42,36,135/- in financial year 2015-2016, ₹ 60,68,254.98/- in the financial year 2016- 2017 and ₹ 15,006,394.78/- in the current financial year - A copy of notice dated 19.06.2017 issued by financial creditor under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act has also been placed on record. It is contended that the applicant company has failed to make payment of the bank dues because of which the Karnataka Bank Limited has declared the account of the applicant company as NPA on 25.01.2017.
The procedure in relation to the Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by the Corporate Debtor is delineated under Section 10 of Code, wherein the Corporate Debtor is required to furnish information in accordance with Form-6 of the Rules. Under Form-6, the Corporate Debtor is required to disclose as amongst others, the details of the Corporate Debtor including the date of incorporation as well as the details of financial creditor and operational creditors to whom the Corporate Debtor owes money including their address for correspondence - It is also pertinent to note that in relation to the debts owed by it the Corporate Debtor is required to furnish the total amount of debt and the amount in default and also in particular as to when the financial or operational debt was incurred including the details of the security held, if any, by the creditors and its estimated value. The Corporate Debtor, in addition, is also required to furnish the documents evidencing the existence of financial/operational debt and the amount in default.
The petitioner has disclosed the details required by Section 10 of the Code read with Rule-7 of Rules. The particulars of the corporate applicant and those of the financial debt have been disclosed in all material particulars. The name of the Interim Resolution Professional has also been proposed - the present application has been filed in requisite form-6 containing the required particulars in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Code. The petitioner satisfies all the statutory requirements. Therefore, the application is admitted.
The present application is complete and that the applicant corporate debtor has committed a default. Therefore, as the application is complete the present application is admitted under section 10 (4) (a) of the Code. The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of this order under sub-section 5 of section 10 of the Code - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1991
Addition u/s 41 of the Act or u/s 68 - outstanding liabilities due towards few parties - HELD THAT:- We are of a strong conviction that the year in which the benefit from cessation or remission of trading liabilities under consideration was obtained by the assessee had been lost sight of by the CIT(A) while justifying the addition under Sec. 41(1) in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. We have also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the ld. A.R and find that the same are distinguishable on facts.
We find that in the case of Sita Devi Juneja [2009 (12) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the sundry creditors had confirmed the outstanding liabilities. However, unlike the facts involved in the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble High Court, in the present case the sundry creditors had themselves stated that nothing was due to them by the assessee. That in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. [1999 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] the debt had become unenforceable in view of the A.O and though the assessee had unilaterally made an entry in its books of accounts, however, there was no such act on the part of the creditors. We thus are of the considered view that the case laws relied upon by the ld. A.R, being distinguishable on facts, would thus not be of any assistance to him in the backdrop of the facts of the case before us.
We thus restore the matter to the file of the A.O, with a direction to readjudicate the issue after making necessary verifications as to when the aforementioned amounts had been written off by the abovementioned parties in their books of accounts, and the consequential benefit had been obtained by the assessee in terms of Sec. 41(1) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1990
Maintainability of interlocutory application for modification - HELD THAT:- The appeal was heard on merit and disposed off on 20.2.2017. In the circumstances, interlocutory application for modification of the said order at this belated stage does not arise.
Interlocutory application otherwise is also not maintainable.
........
|
9911796707
