9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Anand and Sh. Nimit Mathur, Advocates For the Respondents : Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner had approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) claiming to be a 'sick company', and declared to be such on 26.10.1994. Apparently, Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) was devised and eventually sanctioned on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57/2011 which was disposed off on 23.03.2011. This Court's order was upheld by the Supreme Court which declined the Special Leave Petition. In these circumstances, the Income Tax authorities did not give effect to the directions. The petitioner approached this Court again through W.P.(C) 3561/2012 which was again disposed off after hearing it and the Income Tax authorities in terms of the order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclose that the respondents called for the views or granted any opportunity to the petitioner to present its views. At the same time, it is necessary to examine whether the liability under Section 41(1) and capital gains liability etc. is confined to one year and if so the quantum, and whether such liability enured in respect of further assessment periods. It was submitted during the course of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
