Highlights / Annotations:
Co. Law - Amendment to G.S.R.38( E) dated 19th January 2011 -
DVAT - Amendments in the Third schedule appended to the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004
DVAT - Delhi Tax Luxuries Act, 1996 (The turnover of receipt of a proprietor of hotels shall be fifteen percent w.e.f 1st August 2015)
ADD - Seeks to Rescind notification No.109/2011-Customs, dated the 15th December, 2011
ADD - Seeks to finalize provisional assessments of all imports of ceramic glazed tiles falling under tariff item 6908 90 90 , by M/s Gaoyao Marshal Ceramics Co. Ltd., China PR (producer) through M/s Foshan Dihai Trading Development Co.Ltd., China PR (exporter) which have been subjected to provisional assessment pursuant to the Notification No.109/2011-Customs, dated the 15th December, 2011
Cus (NT) - Amends Notification No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001
CE - Seeks to amend Notification No.30/2013-Central Excise dated 29.11.2013
Recent Circulars, Trade / Public Notices:
2015 (8) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax –III Versus M/s. I.P. Patel And Co.
Income Tax: Gains out of cancellation of contracts - whether were income from export business and eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC? - Held that:- Tribunal right in holding that the Gains out of cancellation of contracts were income from export business and eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC. See Commissioner of Incometax-I vs. Friends and Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (5) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Commissioner of Income Tax V. Mitsu Limited [2014 (4) TMI 168 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], CIT v. Badridas.....
2015 (8) TMI 54 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III Versus Veer Gems
Income Tax: Exchange rate difference to exports made in earlier years - Whether was ‘profit of business’ within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the Act? - Held that:- Tribunal was justified in holding that the exchange rate difference to exports made in earlier years was ‘profit of business’ within the meaning of Section 80HHC of the Act. See Commissioner of Incometax-I vs. Friends and Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (5) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Commissioner of Income Tax V. Mitsu Limited [2014 (4.....
2015 (8) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 Versus Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax: Power of the AO to pass the Order - CIT(A) held that the Assessment Order dated 21st January, 2010 for AY 1998-99 had attained finality and thus, the AO had no jurisdiction to pass another Assessment Order for the same Assessment Year confirmed by ITAT - Revenue, contends that the order dated 20th January, 2010 was a mistake, as the AO had not implemented the directions of the Tribunal to re-examine the nature of relevant expenditure incurred by the Assesse - Held that:- A plain reading of the l.....
2015 (8) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Versus Union of India, Through The Secretary And Others
Income Tax: Disallowance made on account of claim for deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- This very issue was covered in favour of the Petitioner by the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2005-2006 in the Petitioner's own case. The departmental representative before the Tribunal also accepted the position. Inspite of the agreed position between the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order yet remands this very issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination/determination.
The Petitioner has .....
2015 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Bharaneedhars Refineries Pvt Ltd Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18
Income Tax: Provisional attachment orders passed under Section 281B - Held that:- A mere reading of the proviso clearly shows that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not carry any merit. Indeed, the proviso says that the period of extension of provisional attachment shall not in any case exceed two years or sixty days after the date of order of assessment or reassessment, whichever is later. Since the provision of sixty days period after the order of assessment or reassessme.....
2015 (8) TMI 50 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Suraj Stainless Ltd., Ahmedabad Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) , Circle-8, Ahmedabad
Income Tax: Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - assessee had neither deducted TDS nor paid the TDS in the current year - Held that:- As before the lower authorities it was claimed that the expenditure were in the nature of reimbursement for the goods that were exported by the assessee. During the course of hearing a question was put to the Ld. A.R. and he was asked to demonstrate the crystallization of liability vis-à-vis the date of exports of goods as it was claimed that the expenditure were with respect to expo.....
2015 (8) TMI 49 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s Café D Lake Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 1 (2) , Hyderabad
Income Tax: Validity of initiation of proceeding u/s 147 - Held that:- From the reasons recorded, it is very much clear that AO was not having in his possession any fresh tangible material which could demonstrate escapement of income. Only on revisiting/reviewing the materials/informations already available on record at the time of original assessment and on reappraisal of the same, AO has formed belief that income has escaped assessment. Therefore, reopening of assessment on re-appreciation or reappraisal .....
2015 (8) TMI 48 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Moldtek Technologies Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Dy. DIT (International Taxation) -I, Hyderabad
Income Tax: Non deduction of TDS on payments made in the nature of royalty - orders passed by the A.O. under section 201(1) and 201(1A) treating the assessee as is in default - whether there was transfer of any rights including the granting of a license in respect of copy right to the assessee in the present case under the license agreements? - Held that:- Orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), however, shows that although he has passed a very detailed order, he has neither considered nor analysed the terms and c.....
2015 (8) TMI 46 - ITAT HYDERABAD
ACIT Central Circle 3 (2) Hyderabad Versus N.S.L.R. Prasad Raju Hyderabad and others
Income Tax: Reopening of assessment - addition u/s 68 - whether assessment on the company which is liquidated and struck off by the Registrar of Companies is invalid - Held that:- AO has invoked the provisions of section 147 and served the notice on a company which is altogether a different company and has also issued notice u/s 142(1) to the erstwhile Director who has already submitted that the company which has been assessed has been liquidated on 25.03.2008. We are of the opinion that the issuance of not.....
2015 (8) TMI 45 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Income-tax Officer, Ward – 1, Hyderabad Versus Sri Venkateswara Cold Storage, Hyderabad
Income Tax: Claim of deduction u/s 35AD - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- There cannot be any doubt with regard to assessee’s claim that the cold storage has started operating during the relevant FY, irrespective of the fact whether it is in February’10 or March’10. The department has failed to bring any material on record to either controvert the factual finding of ld. CIT(A) or any other contrary evidence to conclusively prove the fact that the cold storage has started operating in April’10. As far as .....
More Income Tax Cases
2015 (8) TMI 47 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Shri G. Anand Hyderabad and others Versus Wealth Tax Officer Ward 6 (2) Hyderabad and others
Wealth tax: Wealth tax - Claim of exemption - Urban land - Revenue Authorities assessed the value of the land as on valuation date - AO held the assessee to be liable to penalty u/s 18(1)(c) as the assessee was entitled under the ULCA to make an application for regularisation of the land and that the assessee had on the one hand, not even made such an application and on the other, claimed exemption from wealth tax on this ground - Held that:- Out of the total land of 1790 sq.meters, there is no dispute with.....
2015 (7) TMI 217 - ITAT CHENNAI
The Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax Versus M/s. Vyline Glass Works Ltd.
Wealth tax: Rectification of mistake - Held that:- prima facie there is a mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the said common order of the Tribunal [2012 (4) TMI 151 - ITAT CHENNAI ] is recalled and again reinstated in the rolls of the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal - Decided in favour of Revenue......
2015 (6) TMI 770 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. MIL Industries Ltd.
Wealth tax: Whether the land at Ambattur sold by the assessee would fall within the exclusion clause of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- as the issue involved herein being pure question of fact and as both the Appellate Authorities, after verifying the records, arrived at such conclusion, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. - Decided against Revenue......
2015 (6) TMI 728 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
ACIT (OSD) , Circle-5, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Prasad Machinery Pvt. Ltd.
Wealth tax: Valuation - Addition in net wealth - Held that:- Revenue seeks to restore the Assessing Officer’s findings treating assessee’s industrial sheds in question as taxable under the provisions of wealth tax law. It has come on record that the assessee is utilizing the same in its business of plastic processing machineries and generates revenue therefrom. The lower appellate authority has exempted these sheds from being assessed by quoting section 2(ea)(5) of the Act. It also quotes case law of the tr.....
2015 (6) TMI 256 - ITAT KOLKATA
D.C.W.T. Central Circle-VI, Kolkata Versus Shri Vivek Kr. Kathotia
Wealth tax: Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of W.T.Act, 1957 - Held that:- The penalty is leviable on the date on which the concealment of wealth is committed i.e. the date of offering the return of wealth. Therefore in the present case it will not be justified to refer to the returned wealth u/s 14(1) of the Act for the initiation of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore when there is no concealment there is no question of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act. - The concealment of income is to be determined with rega.....
More Wealth tax Cases
2015 (8) TMI 68 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Shri Nutan Shah Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat
Service Tax: Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Renting of immovable property and sale of space for advertisement - Held that:- Jurisdictional High Court that the facts were identical to the facts of the present case where service tax element was shown in the invoices but the same was not paid by the service recipient. In the present case, Chartered Accountant’s certificate dated 05.3.2014 certifies that service recipient M/s. Reliance Industries Limited has not paid any service tax to the appellan.....
2015 (8) TMI 67 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Mahaveer Transport Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur
Service Tax: Commissioner rejected appeal as no new grounds can be raised - Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - Held that:- Grounds raised by the appellant in appeal filed before the Ld. Commissioner (A) are legal in nature and same can be raised at any point of time. Therefore, the ld Commissioner (A) is required to answer the issue raised by the appellant on merits which Ld. Commissioner has failed to do so. In these circumstances, we do not find any merits with the impugned order. Same is set aside and matter is r.....
2015 (8) TMI 66 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I
Service Tax: Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service - Rural Electrification - Exemption under Notification No.32/2010-ST, dated 22.06.2010 read with Notification No.45/2010-ST - Held that:- Service tax payable on all services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service recipient is not required to be paid. We have seen the related contracts entered by the appellant with M/s. UPCL. It is evident from there that the service rendered by the a.....
2015 (8) TMI 65 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. Banswara Syntex Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II
Service Tax: Penalty u/s 76 & 78 - services of overseas commission agents - ST was paid before SCN - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly noted in the impugned order that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax and the appellant itself informed the department about the liability. Further, the service tax was paid out of the Cenvat credit which was lying with the appellant and it was paid before the issuance of show cause notice. The impugned service tax was paid in cash a.....
2015 (8) TMI 64 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
M/s Sarnar Buildtech Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ahmedabad
Service Tax: Denial of refund claim - refund claim was filed consequent to dropping of show cause notice - doctrine of unjust-enrichment - amount was not shown in the current Assets or Loans/ Advances or receivable in the balance sheets but were shown as expenditure in the books of account - Held that:- that is not a ground for rejecting refund claim - Decision in the case of Ranade and Co vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad (2012 (6) TMI 190 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) followed - there is no evidence broug.....
More Service Tax Cases
2015 (8) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus M/s. Goodyear South Asia Tyres P.L. & Others
Central Excise: Valuation of goods - related person - mutuality of interest - interest free loan - suppression of facts - willful mis-declaration of Assessable value - Evasion of duty - Held that:- The expression 'in the business of each other' clearly denotes that interest of the two persons have to be mutual, i.e., in each other, in order to treat them as related persons. We find from the order of the Member Judicial that only on the ground that the two companies had given a loan of ₹ 85.66 crores to th.....
2015 (8) TMI 60 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Amrit Soap Company
Central Excise: Discrepancy in Finished Goods Register (RG-1) - goods were found in excess of the recorded balance in their RG I register - unfinished / incomplete goods - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- Findings of the adjudicating authority are at variance with what has been detailed in the said Hand Book. Further, the adjudicating authority has not explained in the impugned order as to why the samples were sent to Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU), Amritsar, instead of any.....
2015 (8) TMI 59 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Vaibhav Ispat Pvt Ltd Versus CC & CE, Meerut-I
Central Excise: Area based exemption - commercial production before 31-3-2010 commenced or not - Denial of exemption under notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - New industrial unit - Held that:- Date of commencing of the commercial manufacture is the date of commissioning of plant when the newly commissioned plant had been run and some goods of the desired quality had been produced. However, once the plant is commissioned, it is not necessary that from the day one it must start manufacture at its full i.....
2015 (8) TMI 58 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
M/s Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhaavnagar
Central Excise: Denial of CENVAT Credit - Appellants fabricated a Dry Dock for manufacturing ship and repair service - Credit on input services, input and capital goods used for fabrication of the Dry Dock, amongst others - Held that:- CENVAT Credit availed on input service, input and capital goods for setting up Dry Dock would be allowed for providing output service namely repair/refit service. This is also covered in the inclusive part of the definition of ‘input service’. Hence, the finding of the Adjudicati.....
2015 (8) TMI 57 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Everest Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd, Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Director, M/s MPK Products Pvt Ltd, Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Director, M/s Khetan Alloys Pvt Ltd, Shri Rajendra Kumar Khetan, Director Versus CCE, Jaipur
Central Excise: Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Non accounting of goods - whether on the basis of the evidence, the Commissioner's orders confirming the duty demands against the appellants and imposing penalty on them can be upheld - Held that:- Investigation in respect of the appellant unit started when the unit of NIPL was visited by the Central Excise officers on 03/10/05 and their sales of MS Ingots to various rolling mills were ascertained on the basis of the entries in their private ledger .....
More Central Excise Cases
2015 (8) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT
Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad Versus M/s. Pennar Industries Ltd. & Another
Customs: Exemption claim - import of goods against an advance licence - export obligation - Exemption under Notification No. 30/1997 - It is an admitted case that the raw material was used by the assessee itself for manufacturing the specified products. However, no exports were effected by exporting those goods so manufactured from the raw material that was imported duty-free. - Held that:- it is the case of the assessee that for certain bona fide reasons (as the bona fides of the assessee have been acc.....
2015 (7) TMI 998 - CESTAT MUMBAI
M/s Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd, Shri Noshir Mehta, Shri Parvez Mehta Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai
Customs: Classification of vessels - Offshore Hunter - coastal tug offshore hunter with barge freight' - Denial of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 and 20/2006 - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Penalty u/s 114A and 112 - if the vessel is used for carrying persons and cargo as well as for towing operations, what is the primary purpose for which the vessel is designed - Held that:- Commissioner finds that rule 3a and rule 3b are not applicable and therefore he resorts to rule 3c .....
2015 (7) TMI 925 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. Maiden Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi
Customs: Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Evasion of duty - Undervaluation of goods - Held that:- from a plain reading of provisions of sub-section (n) and (o), it is clear that these provisions are not applicable to the case. In fact Section 111(n) deals with transit/transhipment of goods. Section 111(o) deals with a situation where certain claim is claimed subject to some condition and subsequently the said condition is not followed. In the present case, it is not a situation. In.....
2015 (7) TMI 924 - CESTAT MUMBAI
P.B. NAIR C&F PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) , MUMBAI
Customs: Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of the security deposit - contravention of Regulation 13(a) - held that:- There is no allegation made by the appellant as urged before us that proper procedure of inquiry was not followed or there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice either by the Inquiry Officer or by the adjudicating authority. The only contention is that the evidence adduced by the appellant has not been properly appreciated and the punishment of revocation for the.....
2015 (7) TMI 923 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner Versus Copier Force India Ltd.
Customs: Evasion of duty - Import of used photocopier components of foreign origin - High Court dismissed the petition filed by Revenue for non prosecution against the decision of Tribunal [2008 (12) TMI 451 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], wherein Tribunal held that The Notification No. 19/90-Cus. (N.T.), dated 26-4-1990 issued by the Central Government had conferred the powers of Commissioner of Customs on the ADG, DRI and his jurisdiction was specified as “whole of India”. Though the Additional Director General, D.....
More Customs Cases
2015 (8) TMI 63 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
The Jalandhar Iron And Steel Merchants Association (Regd) , Jalandhar Versus State of Punjab And Others
VAT and Sales Tax: Denial of Input tax credit - Held that:- Value added tax paid at the rate in force on the date of purchase of goods from a taxable person, becomes input tax credit on the date of purchase, if the purchased goods are for resale etc., in the manner prescribed, thereby providing that input tax credit earned by a taxable person on the date of purchase of taxable goods, at the rate of taxation in force, during a particular tax period would be his input tax credit provided the goods are for resale/sal.....
2015 (8) TMI 62 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M/s AB Sugars Ltd. Versus State of Punjab and another
VAT and Sales Tax: Levy of purchase tax - whether the petitioner-sugar mill was liable to pay the purchase tax on the sugarcane purchased by it from the growers - Held that:- The respondents therein contended that sugarcane was exempted from purchase tax inter-alia in view of section 4-B of the PGST Act. The Supreme Court noted the definitions in Section 2 of the PGST Act of the terms “dealer’, ‘goods’ ‘purchase’ ‘sale’ and ‘turnover’. The Supreme Court also noted Section 4 of the PGST Act which was the main charg.....
2015 (8) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
M/s. SUPER PACKAGING INDUSTRIES RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM Versus THE SALES TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, II CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM AND THE STATE OF KERALA
VAT and Sales Tax: Denial of exemption claim u/s 5(3) of CST - inter-state sale of paper cartons - The case pleaded is that the firm had effected inter-state sale of paper cartons to various exporters in the course of export outside the State - Held that:- appellant will have to establish the identity of the goods sold with the goods meant to be exported out of the territory of India. It cannot be said that packing materials as such were meant for export but they were used only for wrapping the "goods which were .....
2015 (8) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Kiran Distributors Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
VAT and Sales Tax: Detention of goods - goods were transported in a different Goods Vehicle - Held that:- when the petitioner has come forward to effect one time tax that will be quantified by the first respondent, this Court finds no impediment to direct the first respondent to release the goods in question to the petitioner on payment of such one time tax. Accordingly, on receipt of a copy of this order, the first respondent is directed to quantify the amount of tax within a day and thereafter, on proper quantif.....
2015 (7) TMI 1038 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M/s Elis Exports Versus The State of Haryana And Another
VAT and Sales Tax: Review of order - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was a case fit for revision under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 or a case fit for reassessment under Section 31 of the said Act - Held that:- Tribunal construed the assessment order in detail and came to a positive finding that the assessment order was passed on account of a mistake of law and that the Assessing Authority had, in fact, considered the entire record and had not brought to tax the sale .....
More VAT and Sales Tax Cases
2015 (7) TMI 828 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Hyundai Motor India Limited Versus Competition Commission of India and others
Corporate Laws: Validity of impugned order - Abuse of dominant position - Practice of anti-competitive activities - Held that:- The duties of the Director General are enumerated in Chapter V of the Competition Act, 2002. Section 41(1) obliges the Director General, to assist the Commission in investigating into any contravention of the provisions of the Act or any Rules or Regulations made thereunder. But, he shall do so only "when so directed by the Commission." But, Sub-Section (2) of Section 41 confers upon t.....
2015 (7) TMI 703 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
Mr. Anand Achyutrao Kulkarni and Others Versus M/s Shivsagar Sugar & Agro Products Ltd. and Another
Corporate Laws: Charges of oppression and mismanagement - Section 397-398 read with Sections 402 to 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Application for impleadment - Held that:- it is thus clear that the CLB is competent to implead a party as a Respondent in a petition filed under Section 397/398 of the Act, if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for doing so. This provision, in my opinion, is akin to the provisions contained in Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C.
It is well settled proposition of law.....
2015 (7) TMI 702 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Factorial Master Fund Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
Corporate Laws: Request for Interim order / relief - SEBI order to restrain from dealing in securities in the Indian Securities Market (including through Offshore Derivative Instruments) - To restrain from accessing the Indian Securities market directly or indirectly - As SEBI needs off shore assistance, needs 4 to 5 months for completing the investigation - Held that:- There can be no dispute that the appellant has suffered serious prejudice on account of restraint order which is operation for nearly one year......
2015 (7) TMI 664 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
SMC Global Securities Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India,
Corporate Laws: Default in collection of margin from Trading members (TMs) - Prohibition on taking new assignment or contract or launch a new scheme for a period of 3 months - Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with Regulations 28 (2) of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 - Professional responsibilities of stock brokers - Significance of margin money - Held that:- SEBI would always have the authority to inquire and impose punishment in those matters which, in its expert opinion, have not been dealt.....
2015 (7) TMI 663 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
K.V Ravindranath Babu and Others Versus M/s. K. Venkataswamy & Co. Pvt Ltd and Anothers
Corporate Laws: Charges of oppression and mismanagement - Application u/s section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Notice of EGM not issued to all shareholders - Held that:- I am of the view that the holding of the EGM on 19.08.2004 is invalid and illegal on the ground that the petitioners have not issued notices for convening the meeting to all the shareholders of the company except informing orally to the shareholders who supported the petitioners cause. The petitioners failed to establish that they h.....
More Corporate Laws Cases
2015 (7) TMI 701 - DELHI HIGH COURT
VIPIN GUPTA & PREMWATI Versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
FEMA: Imposition of penalty - Failure to furnish evidentiary proof of imports regarding foreign exchange in respect of nine remittances in contravention of Sections 8 (3) and 8 (4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that:- Documents were in respect of imports that took place pursuant to the remittances made in the years 1994 to 1999. The Customs authorities had in 1995 seized some of the files in respect of imports that had taken place in 1994. The SCN was issued only in May 2002. The .....
2015 (5) TMI 939 - DELHI HIGH COURT
BATOOL DAWOOD AND OTHERS Versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA
FEMA: Maintainability of appeal - whether the appeals were dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal (which is the new avatar of the Appellate Board) under FERA or FEMA - Held that:- Language of Section 49(5)(b) of FEMA is suggestive of the fact that it is only an appeal, which was pending before the Appellate Board, and which could not be disposed of before the commencement of the Act (i.e., FEMA), would stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, to suggest that the subject appeals, were disp.....
2015 (5) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT
MOHAN ALWANI Versus DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANR.
FEMA: Violation of the provisions of Section 9 (1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA - Receipt and distribution of money - Receipt of commission - Validity of assessment proceedings - inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings - Held that:- Frivolous proceedings or proceedings taken out to merely delay the day of reckoning cannot be treated as proceedings taken in good faith, and that, mere fact on an application or petition, a stay is granted by a superior court is no ground to construe that the proceedi.....
2015 (5) TMI 875 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Gautam Khaitan & Another Versus Union of India And Another
FEMA: Attachment of property - Money laundering Act - whether provisional attachment of the properties in issue, could have been passed without a charge sheet having been filed under Section 173 of the Cr.PC qua the scheduled offences. - breach of principles of natural justice - Held that:- Scheme of Act, as it now operates, is directed not only against persons and juridical entities which are prosecuted for scheduled offences by various agencies, such as the CBI, Customs, SEBI etc., but also operates.....
2015 (5) TMI 368 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Union of India Versus Lal Chand
FEMA: Recovery of large amount of cash - contravention of the provision of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA Act, 1973 - Offence under Section 56(1)(i) of FERA Act and Sections 49(3) and (4) of FEMA Act, 1999 - Reliability on co-accused's statement - Held that:- confession of co-accused is admissible only if the case of other co-accused has been tried jointly as per Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on Exs.P5 and P7/statements of Haja Mohideen - .....
More FEMA Cases
2015 (8) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT
P. SUSEELA & ORS. Versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS.
Allied Laws: Central Government by letter dated 3rd November, 2010 stated candidates seeking appointment to post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor must fulfill minimum qualifications, including condition of passing NET test as prescribed by UGC – Held that:- by Section 20 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Central Government is empowered to give directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes which shall guide Commission in discharge of its functions.
Vested right would arise only .....
2015 (7) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT
DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences and others Versus Union of India and another
Allied Laws: Refusal to renew permission for admitting students for the academic year 2015-16 in the MBBS Course - Held that:- From a bare reading of the provision contained in Article 19(1)(g) it is evidently clear that the citizens have been conferred with the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business, but such right is subject to the restriction and imposition of condition as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. - The Court held that imparting education ca.....
2015 (7) TMI 1011 - SUPREME COURT
Payal Chawla Singh Versus Coca-Cola Co. and another
Allied Laws: Gender discrimination and harassment of female employee - Arbitration petition filed for compensation - reference to solutions programme - demand for arbitration made by the petitioner was refused by the respondent on the ground that the "solutions programme" was not applicable to the petitioner and the same was meant only for employees of the first respondent in the United States of America - Held that:- there is no binding arbitration agreement between the petitioner and her employer so as to .....
2015 (7) TMI 814 - SUPREME COURT
M/s Shreenath Corp. & Ors Versus Consumer Education & Research Society & ORS.
Allied Laws: Waiverof pre deposit - Complaint u/s 17(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Held that:- The second proviso to Section 19 of the Act mandates pre-deposit for consideration of an appeal before the National Commission. It requires 50% of the amount in terms of an order of the State Commission or 35,000/- whichever is less for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission. Unless the appellant has deposited the predeposit amount, the appeal cannot be entertained by the National Commission......
2015 (7) TMI 786 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Brakes India Ltd. Versus The Employees Provident Fund Organisation vellore
Allied Laws: Proceedings under section 14B of the PF Act - Independent employer - Held that:- A. Govindaraj is a licenced Contractor and he employed about 15 to 20 contract workmen inside the petitioner factory for doing certain civil work. - Earlier, the petitioner Company was not made a party and in their absence, proceedings were initiated against the Contractor and the petitioner Company came to know about the proceedings only when the Contractor contacted for an advance after having suffered to an order.....
More Allied Laws Cases
Jiva Seva is Shiva Seva :
Service to humanity is Service to God
May I be born again and again, and suffer thousands of miseries so that I may worship the only God that exists, the only God I believe in, the sum total of all souls—and above all, my God the wicked, my God the miserable, my God the poor of all races, of all species, is the special object of my worship.
- Swami Vivekananda, CW, 5:137