|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1586 Records
-
2019 (10) TMI 1528 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 54 - restricted deduction only to one residential house - as argued by assessee that exemption u/s. 54/54F should be allowed on the investment made on multiple residential houses at different places - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been decided against the assessee by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of ITO v. Ms. Sushila Jhaveri (2007 (4) TMI 289 - ITAT BOMBAY-I] - We also find that in the case of K.C. Kaushik [1990 (4) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has taken a similar view.
Thus, we do not see any infirmity in allowing exemption u/s. 54 of the Act on the investment made only in one residential house. Thus, we sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the assessee.
Capital gain - nature of land sold - whether land along with residential shed sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and not a “capital asset” within the meaning of provisions of clause (a) of Section 2(14) and therefore outside the purview of the provisions of computation of capital gains u/s. 45 of the Act as the asset is situated beyond 8 Kms from the municipal limit - HELD THAT:- Since adjudication of this ground leads to the very computation of capital gains and levy of taxes and since this is not before lower authorities, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. If the land and shed sold by the assessee is proved to be an agricultural land and situated beyond 8 KM from the municipal limits the very computation provisions for capital gains fails and there shall not be any tax liability at all. In the circumstances, since this additional ground is going to the root of the computation of capital gains itself, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1527 - SC ORDER
Seeking modification of orders made previously, which had granted anticipatory bail to him - condition of having to secure prior permission, before travelling abroad - HELD THAT:- This court is of the opinion that since the chargesheet had been filed, there was no material alteration in the facts, justifying the High Court to modify the conditions governing the grant of anticipatory bail. Significantly, an identical application for modification of the conditions of bail was made earlier by the respondent, which did not meet with success; he withdrew that application. There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the precondition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this case. Mere inconvenience in the matter of approaching the court, therefore absent of any significant change of circumstances (i.e. framing of charges or no significant or serious material emerging during the trial, in the course of deposition of key witnesses, as to the role of the respondent), ought not to have led to dilution of the terms of the High Court’s previous consistent orders. At best, the condition for seeking permission before travelling abroad could have been regulated, not deleted altogether.
This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained; it is accordingly set aside. The condition originally imposed upon the respondent as a part of the order granting anticipatory bail to secure prior permission before travelling abroad is hereby restored. At the same time, the trial court is enjoined and directed to deal with the application seeking permission, whenever made, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, ensure that orders are made within one week of filing it (i.e., application seeking prior permission). It goes without saying that such orders shall be made after considering the view of the CBI and taking note of relevant factors, and at the same time, ensuring that reasonable period before undertaking the travel is also given.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1526 - SUPREME COURT
Termination of lease agreement - WBSIDC's right to forfeit the lease, when the lessor had no grievance in that regard - HELD THAT:- The finding that since the exercise by the lessor (WBSIDC) of its right to determine the lease attained finality, the mortgagee (represented by the Appellant) could not claim rights superior to that of the lessee, is in consonance with settled law.
There can be no dispute, nor was it contended that a donee or a grantee (as the status of the lessee company in liquidation as in this case) can have no rights in excess of that possessed by the donor or the grantor. The mortgagee (whose shoes SASF has stepped into) of the lessee (Wellman) can have no right greater or better than that of the lessee in terms of the deed of lease.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1525 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of temporary bail - filing nomination form for the limited period - offences punishable under sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465. 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1863 - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration that the petitioner is an elected MLA and desirous to contest the ensuing Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Election to be held in the Month of October 2019, coupled with the fact that right to contest the election is a statutory right, we are inclined to release the petitioner on temporary bail in order to facilitate him to fill the nomination form as stated.
The petitioner is directed to be released on temporary bail for the period of four days, i.e., 3rd October 2019 to 6th October 2019 in order to facilitate the petitioner to fill the nomination form on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Superintendent Prison, Thane - Petition allowed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1524 - ITAT DELHI
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non specification of clear charge - HELD THAT:- As decided in SHRI HARISH CHANDER KAPOOR, PROP. M/S. LUCKY ENTERPRISES [2019 (10) TMI 604 - ITAT DELHI] as relying on HEMLA EMBROIDERY MILLS PRIVATE LTD [2019 (10) TMI 250 - ITAT DELHI] Assessee has raised a specific ground of appeal that A.O. has miserably failed to point out exactly under which limb of Section, the impugned penalty proceedings have been initiated and for want of which, the present penalty have become invalid. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention of the Ld. D.R. has no merit and is accordingly rejected. Following the above decisions, we are of the view that since the impugned show cause notices issued by the A.O. are bad in law, therefore, entire penalty proceedings are vitiated and as such, no penalty is leviable against the assessee. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1523 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of pre-arrest bail - diversion of loan amount by the company - non-compliance with the conditions of agreement - fraud of inter-State ramification - petitioner seek for pre-arrest bail on the ground that the transaction is commercial one and they have already paid a substantial amount of Rs.30 Crore to the Bank on the basis of One time settlement with the Bank - HELD THAT:- In this case, the petitioners had obtained certain loan amounts for execution of a project work which could not be completed in time and, as such, their contract was terminated, and the petitioners are now in dispute with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited for termination of the said contract. The other allegation with regard to diversion of funds is there. Sanction and disbursement of the loan is not in dispute. The allegation is that the petitioners failed to comply with the contract by not purchasing machinery and other things and hypothecating the same with the Bank. But, the Bank in the meanwhile has settled the claim at Rs.40 Crore in One Time Settlement basis out of which Rs.30 Crore has already been paid by the petitioners leaving the balance of Rs.10 crore to be paid by the end of December, 2019. The entire evidence is documentary in nature.
In the context of the allegation that the petitioners diverted the loan amount by not utilizing the same for execution of the work, and thereby impeded chance of the Bank to get back the amount, it may be reiterated that the Bank has already worked out one time settlement and a major part of the amount has already been received by the Bank - In the aforesaid circumstance, when there being least chance of absconding of the petitioners, more particularly their release on pre-arrest bail would not have any serious impact on a free and fair investigation, this Court, is of the view that the petitioners deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail subject to certain conditions.
This Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on bail by the Officer effecting arrest on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper including the condition that they shall cooperate with the investigation by remaining present personally as and when directed / noticed by the Investigating Officer concerned, and making payment of Rs.10 Crore (Rupees Ten Crores) to the Bank as agreed, within the time stipulated and if required to deposit their passport - Application allowed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1522 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Breach of agreement - HELD THAT:- If documents have been placed showing that there is a ‘pre-existence of dispute’ with regard to the alleged claim, the Adjudicating Authority without going into the merit of the case, had rightly rejected the application under Section 9 on the ground that there is ‘pre-existence of dispute’.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1521 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance on account of Sales Promotion and disallowance on account of cost of goods for free replacement - Disallowance on account of discount to Indian customers - non-furnishing of the requisite documentary evidence - assessee contended that all the necessary documents qua allowances claimed have been produced before the AO - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the AO has disallowed all the aforesaid expenses on ad hoc basis. It is also not in dispute that neither in the preceding years nor in the succeeding years, such expenses claimed by the assessee have been disallowed by the Revenue.
AO as well as CIT (A) have time and again mentioned in the order that the additions are being made on account of non-furnishing of the requisite documentary evidence to substantiate the sale promotion, goods replaced and discount given to the Indian customers. For perusal of the Bench, assessee produced plethora of documents to support his contention.
We are of the considered view that when the assessee has produced requisite documentary evidence before the AO, the addition was not required to be made on the ad hoc basis rather it should have been made, if any, on the basis of actual facts of the case. In these circumstances, we deem it necessary to remand the case back to the AO to decide afresh in the light of the documents relied upon by the assessee as well as in the light of the facts that such allowances claimed by the assessee have been allowed by the Revenue itself in the preceding as well as succeeding years. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1520 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Exemption provided u/s 194A(3)(v) - deduction of tax at source would not apply in cases where the income is paid by a Co-operative Society - HELD THAT:- The petitioners are Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the provision of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In the writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P3 communications received from the General Manager, Kottayam District Co-operative Bank, intimating them, based on the advice received from the Income Tax Department, that the interest payable to them on the Fixed Deposits maintained with the Bank is not exempt from the procedure for tax deduction at source (TDS) and that tax would be deducted at source and remitted to the Government on such interest payments.
It is the case of the petitioners that the interest income accruing to it is from the deposits made by the petitioners with the kottayam District Co-operative Bank and hence, as per the provisions of Section 194A(3)(v), the provisions of sub section (1) thereof, which contemplate a deduction of tax at source would not apply in cases where the income is paid by a Co-operative Society to any other Co- operative Society. It is the case of the petitioners that the payment of interest from the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank to the petitioner has to be viewed as a payment of income by a Co-operative Society to another Co-operative Society and hence the provisions of Section 194A (3)(v) would apply to exclude the receipts of interest income by the petitioners from the requirement of tax deduction at source.
Through a statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is conceded that the petitioners would get the benefit of the exemption provided under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Taking note of the statement, we allow the writ petition by declaring that there will be no requirement of deducting tax at source in the case of payment of interest from the District Co-operative Bank Kottayam to the petitioners.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1519 - ITAT SURAT
Disallowance of depreciation claim on intangible assets - assessee company had purchased business on slump sale basis - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of assessee as relying on own case which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court [2019 (5) TMI 1208 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as held specified intangible assets , viz business claims, business information , business records , contracts , employees and of know-how acquired by assessee under slump sale agreement are in the nature of ‘business or commercial right’ of similar nature specified in section 32(1)(ii) and are accordingly eligible for depreciation - Decided in favour of assessee.
Reallocating the personal expenses, foreign travelling expenses, staff welfare expenses, Oil and Petrol expenses and other common expenses between Bilag unit and BEOU in the turnover ratio - HELD THAT:- We find that turnover ratio of BEOU is 35.89% as compared to Bilag unit at 64.11%. However, the tribunal in the case of the assessee has restricted the allocation to 10% in assessment year 2004-05 and in A.Y.2005-06 - Therefore, following the consistency in approach, the ratio of allocation applied by the Tribunal is found to be correct. However, the assessee has itself allocated 17.96% in personal expenses, foreign travelling expenses, staff welfare, and oil & petrol expenses, hence, the disallowance made on this account is deleted. With regard to other common expenses allocated @15%, the AO is directed to allocate 10% to BEOU, therefore, this issue is partly allowed. In view of these facts and circumstances, this grounds of appeal is partly allowed.
Exclusion of interest on others and liability no longer required to be written back while granting deduction under section 10B - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue on exclusion of interest income stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of tribunal in the case of Lubrizol Advanced Materials (India) Pvt. [2013 (12) TMI 1590 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein it was held that once an income form part of business of undertaking, same would be included in profits of business of undertaking and will be eligible for deduction under section 10B - With regard to liabilities no longer written back, we find that the same pertains to expenses that have been allowed in the previous assessment years as business expenditure, therefore the same represents income from business, hence we are of the considered opinion same is allowable to be included for the purpose of deduction u/s.10B of the Act. In view of these facts, we allow this grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1518 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of writ petition against the assessment order - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - whether in absence of assessment order passed in original assessment proceeding as the same was a deemed assessment under Section 21 (2) of the VAT Act and levy of penalty under Section 22 (2) of the VAT Act is justified? - HELD THAT:- Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Officer -1 & Ors. v Smt. Kamala Ojha [2019 (6) TMI 1439 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] has held that when alternative remedy is available, the writ petition against the re-assessment is not maintainable - In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT] the Writ Petition filed directly challenging the assessment/re-assessment order is not maintainable in view of existence of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 48 of the VAT Act.
Whether the deemed assessment is also an assessment under Section 22 (1) of the VAT Act, therefore, a re-assessment of the deemed assessment is not impermissible? - HELD THAT:- The issue is not decided on merits for the reason that having found the writ petition not maintainable, the writ petitioner is directed to be relegated before the Appellate Authority by preferring an appeal within a period of 45 days from today. If the merits of the matter is dealt with it may cause prejudice to either of the parties.
The common impugned order passed by the Writ Court is set aside and the assessee is directed to move before the Appellate Authority within a period of 45 days from today - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1517 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Financial Creditor has been able to make out a good case for initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The financial creditor succeeds in proving that there is outstanding loan and default on the part of corporate debtor. The application is complete meeting all the requirement to be meted out u/s 7(5) (a) of the Code.
The application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, M/s Aeon Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., is hereby admitted - Moratorium declared.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
TDS u/s 194A - deposits in regard to TDS amount from the Insurance Company - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to accept the submissions from the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the directions contained in Para 14 in relation to TDS are for smooth discharge of the liability u/s 194A of the Income-tax Act as also the convenience of the claimant to apply for refund if necessary. The permission in terms of Para 14 II(ii) thus seems to be of a formal nature and not adjudicatory, inasmuch as adjudication can be done only by the income-tax department when the refund is claimed. It is, therefore, needless to say that unless the computation of the interest liable to tax is questioned; normally permission under the said directions should be given as a matter of course. It is, therefore, directed that the Tribunal will consider permission (supra) within 10 days of the receipt of the application accompanied with statement as indicated in Hansagauri [2006 (10) TMI 383 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
This petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall, make a fresh application to the Tribunal in accordance with the observations made in Hansagauri (supra) as also observations made herein.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1515 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- The assessee explained before AO that cash deposit in the bank account was out of opening cash balance available with the assessee as on 11.04.2007 and drawings made from its bank account from time to time. We noted that the CIT(A) deleted the addition as the revenue could not point out that the cash available with the assessee i.e. opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 is not available or it was not disputed. Even now, before us, the Revenue has not disputed the availability of the cash balance and out of which the assessee claimed to have been deposited in the bank Account. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1514 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance being 75% of commission expenditure - HELD THAT:- The assessee has neither substantiated the services rendered by the recipient of the commission nor furnished the addresses of the recipient of commission parties as a result the genuineness of the commission payment could not be established. Under the circumstances, we consider that the ld. CIT(A) has reasonably restricted the disallowance to 75% of the aforesaid expenditure claimed to be made to 774 parties, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A).
Regarding claim of payment of commission to Smt. Padmaben M. Vora who was the mother in law of the assessee, it is observed that in spite of giving a number of opportunities by the assessing officer and ld. CIT(A), the assessee has failed to demonstrate the services rendered by her mother in law against which such huge commission was paid by the assessee. Even the assessing officer has examined Smt. Padmaben M. Vora mother in law of the assessee and recorded her statement u/s. 131(1) of the act and found that Smt. Padmaben M. Vora was not having any experience in stock broking business and she could not substantiate that what were services she had rendered to the assessee on the basis of which the assessee has paid commission to her. Considering the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A) by holding that the recipient of the commission could not establish rendering of services to the assessee. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is also dismissed.
Disallowance of salary expenses as outstanding during the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- We observe that neither the assessee has fully substantiated the claim of outstanding salary expenses with relevant evidences nor the assessing officer has fully disproved the claim of the assessee that she has not deployed any employee during the year under consideration. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that it will be reasonable to restrict the disallowance to the extent of 50% of the outstanding salary to the amount of Rs. 4 lacs. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Short term capital gain as business income - HELD THAT:- We observe that ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee as per the alternative contention made by the assessee that share held for less than 30 days be treated as business income, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1513 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of ts dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor is not in a position to revive the operations successfully or make any tangible proposal to pay off the debt due to the Financial Creditor, this Tribunal hereby admit this Company Petition.
Application admitted - Moratorium declared.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1512 - SC ORDER
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - income generated out of the assessee's investment funds in fixed deposits - as per HC question whether the income should be taxed as business income or as arising from the other source was a debatable issue and AO has taken a plausible view - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1511 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Valuation - supply of service of “Transmission of Electricity” - taxability of cost of construction/ erection of Bays/ Sub-Stations, Overhead lines and Underground Cables and other charges including Pro-rata charges, supervision charges, proportionate line charges, registration fees and operation and maintenance charges, recovered by the Applicant from the consumers in assessable value - exempt from GST under Sr. No.25 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 and Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30th June 2017 or not.
HELD THAT:- Issue Notice, returnable on 11.12.2019.
By way of ad interim relief, the operation of the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling, the third respondent herein, is hereby stayed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1510 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Ingenuine preferential allotment of shares - disgorgement of ill-gotten gains - matter relating to buying and selling of shares of the company and, upon an analysis of the trading activity in the scrip of the company, it found that 37 entities were acting together as a group and had adopted a fraudulent device and artifice to defraud the genuine shareholders of the company by falsely portraying fraudulent transactions as genuine preferential allotment of shares and offloading the shares allotted pursuant to the preferential allotment thereby earning illegal profits - Orders against 37 entities restraining them from accessing the securities market and further prohibiting them from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market either directly or indirectly and further directed them to keep in an escrow account an amount of ₹ 6 crore which they had earned illegally from sale of the shares allotted in preferential allotment by the company - contention of some of the appellants that they were only employees in the company and had no knowledge of the fraudulent activities
HELD THAT:- We find that the contention of some of the appellants that they were only employees in the company and had no knowledge of the fraudulent activities is patently baseless and cannot be accepted. Each of the appellants were aware of the activities being done through their accounts and, therefore, it is inconceivable to believe that they were not aware of their bank accounts, trading accounts or the demat accounts being utilized by Shri Rajesh Ranka. The contention that they were not signatories to these accounts is a mere afterthought as, except one, others have not filed an FIR to this effect. However, there is nothing to show that this appellant (in Appeal No. 71 of 2019) pursued the matter in any manner. Further, we find that the appellants were beneficiaries to the profits which came into these accounts.
All the appellants were acting in concert as majority of the appellants had a common e-mail and address of Rajesh Ranka who is alleged to be an employee in the company and to whom a power of attorney was also given to the bank to send all e-mails and statements of accounts. This fact has not been denied by any of the appellants.The contention that the appellant Rajesh Ranka cannot be held guilty either for debarment or for disgorgement as he was neither a preferential allottee nor profited by the sale of these shares is patently erroneous. Rajesh Ranka has been found to be acting in concert with the appellant and other entities in adopting fraudulent devices and was operating all the accounts of the appellants through the power of attorney given to him. In certain instances, there has been evidence of transfer of funds from one account to the other account. The WTM has further found that he had access to the e-mail account of all the appellants and was also the authorized signatory of the bank account of all the other appellants. Not only that, the bank statement of the appellants was being sent to him. Therefore, he was part of the fraud and even though he may not be an allottee himself but was involved in the manipulation or fraud in concert with others.
The contention made by the appellants that they have not made profits nor sold the shares, and therefore, cannot be made liable for disgorgement either individually or jointly is patently misconceived - The contention that since the profit has not been computed, the amount cannot be disgorged under Section 11B is patently erroneous. A feeble attempt was made by one of the appellants that the expenses incurred by the appellants in the transactions should be deducted from the profits or wrongful gains made by them. Such submission cannot be considered in the absence of any amount being brought on record to show the actual expenses incurred by the appellants. The contention raised is misconceived and an afterthought. The contention by some of the appellants that they were not signatories to the bank accounts, trading accounts or the demat accounts and that a fraud was played upon them and, therefore, they should not be made liable for disgorgement is patently erroneous. We are of the opinion that by renting their demat account, trading account etc., the appellants were concealing the identity of the fraudster and, thus, were acting not only in concert but in connivance with the said fraudster. The appellants cannot, thus, escape from the liability of debarment and the wrongful gains made by them.
From the aforesaid, it is clear that a person can be directed to disgorge amount equivalent to the wrongful gain made by him. By such contravention, the liability to disgorge the amount is individual and not collective. Thus, we are of the opinion that the direction of the WTM directing the appellants to pay the amount jointly or severally is against the provisions of Section 11B and to that extent, it cannot be sustained. The order of the WTM is consequently, modified to the extent that the liability of the appellants in question except Rajesh Ranka to disgorge the amount is to the extent of the profit earned by them as calculated by the WTM under Table 9. In the event of failure by these appellants to pay the amount, it would be open to SEBI to recover the amounts in the order of hierarchy stipulated in paragraph 145(e) of the impugned order. We are of the view that in view of the role played by Rajesh Ranka, the disgorgement is jointly and severally for which we do not find any fault with the order of the WTM. Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (10) TMI 1509 - SC ORDER
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - inclusion or exclusion of certain comparables by the Tribunal while carrying out FAR in case of the Assessee - HC held Tribunal correctly discarded two entities namely Motilal Oswal Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and Brescon Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that these companies were merchant bankers or investment bankers and cannot be compared with the Assessee who was investment subadvisor and comparison with ICRA Investment issue is covered against the Revenue - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.
........
|
