|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1319 Records
-
2021 (1) TMI 1201 - ITAT JODHPUR
Estimation of business income - Invoking the provisions of section 145(3) - CIT(A) justification in directing AO to apply the position of profits after interest but before depreciation in the year under appeal and in preceding year - HELD THAT:- The estimation of income from business had been made after considering the various aspects of the case - also considered the reasonable of gross profit rate and the allowance of various indirect expenses, interest and depreciation. The second issue of the revenue with regard to allowability of depreciation has also been decided. Thus, we don’t find any merit in the present appeal of the revenue and dismiss both the grounds of appeal raised in the Revenue appeal.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1200 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Taxability - copper scrap - HELD THAT:- On the issue of valuation, it does appear that the petitioner had relied on the certificate of the purchaser dealer at Delhi to establish that the value of goods is not more than ₹ 50 per kg on the other hand, it is not clear as to how and on what basis the valuation had been taken at ₹ 380 per kg that too without adopting the procedure prescribed under the Act.
List immediately thereafter.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1199 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - tax invoice was found not supporting the goods as discovered upon physical verification - HELD THAT:- There was nothing to doubt the ownership over the goods and ownership may arise even if the dealer is an unregistered dealer. In that regard, it has been further submitted that there was no competing claim made by any other person as to the title of the goods.
Matter requires consideration.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1198 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Levy of GST - supply of service by the applicant Corporation in recovery of expenses from DISCOMs as well as UPPTCL and other power companies by way of book entries - inclusion of incidental expenses in value of supply - recovery against certain expenses such as interest cost, salary, depreciation, etc. - transfer of miscellaneous incomes of the applicant Corporation to DISCOMs, UPPTCL and other power companies - taxable expenditure will be allowed as ITC to the corporation for further adjustment of GST payable on recovery of expenses by way of book entries - difference of opinion.
HELD THAT:- In view of difference of opinion between the Members of Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for Goods and Service Tax, Uttar Pradesh, no ruling can be issued on the questions raised by the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of Sub Section 3 of Section 101 of CGST Act, 2017. Thus the Advance Ruling issued vide Order IN RE: M/S. UP POWER CORPORATION LTD., [2020 (9) TMI 1226 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULLING, UTTAR PRADESH] by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh, is deemed to be not in operation.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1197 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - as per the terms of the compromise the complainant/appellant was required to withdraw the civil suit filed before the trial Court, but he has failed to fulfill his obligation - HELD THAT:- It is the duty of the appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence relied on by the parties is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits and not merely perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment, but by cross checking the reasoning and material on record. In the instant case strangely the accused has been convicted without there being sufficient evidence and only on the basis of the joint memo filed by the parties.
Admittedly as per the terms of the joint memo the complainant/appellant has received the entire cheque amount of ₹ 90,000/-. When there was satisfaction of the entire claim by the accused, the complainant/appellant was duty bound to withdraw the civil suit filed before the trial Court as agreed by him in the joint memo. The complainant has failed to fulfill his obligation and has managed to get a decree for recovery of a sum of ₹ 21,000/-. Under these circumstances if these criminal cases are remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial as ordered by the Sessions Court it would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
The accused is acquitted for the charges leveled against her for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1196 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Classification of services - Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed Project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy services (PMCS) provided by the applicant to recipient under the Contract for SUDA and the Project Management Consultancy services (PMC) under the Contract for PMAY - would qualify as an activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243W respectively, of the Constitution of India? - Pure services or not - applicability of serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017.
HELD THAT:- As per the work order produced by the applicant, it is clear that the Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed Project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy services (PMCS) have been provided by the applicant to SUDA (State Urban Development Agency). SUDA has been established as a state level nodal agency, under the department for Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation by Uttar Pradesh Government. This authority is registered under the 'Registration of Societies Act' since 20th November' 1990. As per the “Memorandum of Association of State Urban Development Agency”, its main objective shall be for “betterment of urban population” through comprehensive approach - SUDA is neither covered in the definition of Central Govt. nor State Govt. Moreover, SUDA is also not covered in Local Authority as the definition of local authority is very specific and means only those bodies which are mentioned as local authorities in clause (69) of section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The applicant has not submitted any relevant document to establish the coverage of services provided by them in particular functions entrusted to a municipality under the twelfth Schedule to Article 243W of the Constitution. The nature of services mentioned in the Work Order dated 16.01.2019 (attached by the applicant in the application of advance ruling on sample basis) i.e. preparation of DPR and Project Management Consultancy are not covered in the functions entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1195 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Resolution Professionals seeking peaceful handover of property - Section 25(2)(a) of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- It is very clear that the Respondents are not co-operating with the RP and therefore, we direct the Respondents to co-operate with the RP in handing over the property to him. After going through the documents, it is clear that the property is the asset of the Corporate Debtor over which the Respondents have a possession which is needed to be handed over to the RP. The RP is directed to obtain the possession at the earliest and is at a liberty to take assistance from the local police if at all needed.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1194 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Classification of goods - GST rate - Popcorn - applicability of N/N .01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 amended till date - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the product in question i.e. 'POP CORN' is manufactured from maize corn by heating in an electric kettle and due to the heat of kettle, they turn into puffed corns/popcorns and then to make it palatable other ingredients like salt and turmeric powder are added to it and a negligible quantity of oil is also used for the purpose of sticking the salt and turmeric on the maize/corn. Thus it is a ready to eat prepared food and fits the description as 'Prepared foods obtained by the roasting of cereal'. This description attracts classification under Chapter Sub-Heading 1904 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since it is not Corn flakes (tariff item 1904 10 10), Paws, Mudi and the like (tariff item 1904 10 20) or Bulgur wheat (tariff item 1904 10 30), it will fall under the residual tariff item 1904 10 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The HSN code of the product namely “Popcorn” is 19041090 attracting rate of tax @ 9% each under Central and State Tax (cumulatively 18%) as per Sl. No. 15 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1193 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
Scope of Advance Ruling application - Admissibility of ITC - procurement of the concerned inputs if the procedure as elaborated, is adopted by the applicant in respect of inward supply of scrap and sponge iron used by the applicant for manufacture of M.S. billets - procedure adopted by the applicant and the documents/records maintained by the applicant is sufficient compliance of the conditions and restrictions for input tax credit as given under the GST Acts - HELD THAT:- The applicant's question whether the procedure adopted and the documents/records maintained by applicant can be deemed to be a sufficient compliance of conditions and restrictions for admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid on inward supply of local scrap and sponge iron used in the manufacture of M.S. billets.
This authority is of view that the issue is technical/procedural in nature and is not covered by any of the clauses of Sec. 97(2).
-
2021 (1) TMI 1192 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , GUWAHATI BENCH
Sanction of Scheme of Merger by absorption - Section 230-232 of Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Various directions regarding holding, convening and dispensation of various meetings issued - directions regarding issuance of notices also issued.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1191 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - fulfilment of conditions laid down under Section 10 of the Contract Act - HELD THAT:- It is the duty of the Adjudicating Authority to decide in conformity with the pleadings and the proofs i.e. to say “jus decere”, and non “jus dare” to administer the justice and not to make the law.
It is well established rule of law that- “all contracts and agreement but all agreements are not contract”. This is so because for a contract to be valid, it needs to fulfil all the essential ingredients mentioned under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as Contract Act). Even if it is assumed that MoU fulfils all the ingredients of the Contract Act but in that case the MOU so relied upon by the petitioner is bad in the eye of law inasmuch as it does not fulfil the condition of Section 10 of the Contract Act, as the date is not given, and in number of places the vital information and details are blank as is apparent from page no 218 and 220 of the application (Exhibit-H). The enforceability of a MoU depends upon the principle governing legislation, I.e. the Contract Act.
The Petitioner, admittedly has shown the date of default as the date of filing of the commercial suit number 782 of 2017 filed somewhere in July 2017 as reflected from Form I, part IV at page no 6 of the Application. It is to be mentioned herein that, the word “Creditor”, “Debt”, and “default” are used at many places in Insolvency Code and hence are very important. “Default” means non-payment of debt when whole or any part of instalment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not paid by the debtor or the Corporate Debtor, as the case may be, Section 3(12) of the IB Code. Therefore, the date of filing of the commercial suit i.e. dated 12.07.2017, cannot be, in any manner be called as date of default, as per IB Code. Thus, due to want of “date of default”, the petition is bad in eye of law and not maintainable.
On going through the records and documents produced by both the sides it is amply clear that, the arrangement between the parties are in the nature of business sharing and there is no 'financial debt' - the records show that even after receiving letter dated 03.06.2011(Letter of Intent), the petitioner has never raised any objection and has accepted and admitted the conditions drawn by the respondent. Under such circumstances, even if we assume and consider the petitioner as "financial creditor", then even the claim so filed by the petitioner stands time barred.
The Adjudicating Authority is of the considered view that the instant petition is not maintainable - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1190 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of Interim Bail - petitioner was enlarged on interim bail on medical grounds pending the consideration of the main bail petition - HELD THAT:- This is really a problem of his own making in having pursued the matter for the mail bail petition rather than seeking extension of interim bail on medical grounds. Be that as it may, we permit the petitioner to move the High Court seeking interim bail on medical grounds and since the petitioner would have to surrender today, we grant time till Friday to obtain orders, if any, from the High Court and providing interim protection till that time to surrender.
SLP dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1189 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Corporate Debtor has not been working since long and the last Balance Sheet i.e., found in the MCA Portal is for the year 2012-2013 - Corporate Debtor Directors are also not traceable - section 33(2) of IBC - HELD THAT:- Though this Company Petition was admitted on 03.01.2020, for the application for appointment of Authorized Representative remained pending for long time, the RP could not get home buyers approval until before 2nd CoC meeting. Of late the AR being appointed, the CoC held meeting on 12.12.2020 and e-voted on with 96.7% approval on 14.12.2020 for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, accordingly the RP filed this Application proposing liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. It is also pertinent to mention that RP having given consent to be appointed as a Liquidator, the same has been filed along with this application for appointment of RP as Liquidator.
As the company has not been working since long and the Directors of the company are also not traceable, the CoC has taken a right decision proposing for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - liquidation is ordered subject to conditions imposed.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1188 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Maintainability of application - Section 19(2) r.w. 74 of IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The matter stands adjourned to 11.02.2021 for further consideration.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - smuggling of Gold - framing of charges under the PML Act - HELD THAT:- It cannot be stated that there are no prima facie materials against the accused for framing charges under the PML Act. This Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact, while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
This criminal original petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court after the charges are framed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1186 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - predicate offence - proceeds of crime - Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Under Section 24 of the PML Act, the burden is on the accused to prove that the proceeds of crime was not involved in money laundering. In this case, M/s. Maze Group of Technology was into finance business which cannot be said to be per se a criminal activity. Even assuming for a moment that they were into a criminal activity and the sum of ₹ 15 lakhs that was given as advance by Manoharan to Kumar Ganesa Perumal was proceeds of crime, the mere fact that Kumar Ganesa Perumal agreed to sell his property to Manoharan, cannot, by itself, bring him into the net of Section 3 of the PML Act without anything more.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1185 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Rebuttal of presumption - preponderance of probability - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- The signature of the petitioner in the cheque has not been disputed and the only dispute is that the petitioner has not borrowed money from the respondent and not issued the cheque, whereas he admitted that he borrowed money from one N.K.Krishnan who is a close relative of the respondent/complainant and he also stated that he repaid the money to him, but the said N.K.Krishnan failed to return the cheque, for which the petitioner has not taken any steps in the manner known to law either by issuing notice to said N.K.Krishnan to get back the cheque or by filing any complaint after sending notice to him. Therefore, the defense taken by the petitioner is not sustainable.
The petitioner has not proved that the respondent has no capacity or means to lend the money and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of means to lend the loan is not acceptable and the same is rejected.
Once the petitioner had not denied the signature and also not established that cheque was given to one N.K.Krishnan and not to the respondent and on what date he borrowed money from N.K.Krishnan and repaid the money and on what date again he asked the cheque, the learned Magistrate and the District Judge has rightly convicted the petitioner by appreciating the evidence and materials placed before them - A reading of the entire materials on record shows that the signature was not in dispute and the defense taken by the petitioner relating to issuance of cheque to N.K.Krishnan is not established and lending capacity of the respondent also not disproved. Therefore when the signature is not in dispute, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has come into picture. No doubt presumption need not be rebutted by direct evidence and it can be rebutted by preponderance of probability, the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption. But, the petitioner has not rebutted the presumption in the manner known to law.
This Court does not find any perversity, infirmity of illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below and the revision is liable to be dismissed - Revision dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1184 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking the release of the passport of the petitioner - requirement of petitioner to visit America before September, 2021, failing which he will loose the benefit of green card - HELD THAT:- Let the affidavit as being requested be filed before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to learned counsel for the respondents.
Adjourned to 22.06.2021.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1183 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - fake invoices - bogus ITC - non-existent firms - dummy sales - availment of irregular credit - offence under Sections 69 read with clauses (b), (c) & (1)1 of Section 132 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of the case, length of his detention in custody and nature of accusation, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned SDJM, Rourkela and GST Enforcement Unit, Jajpur, Jajpur Road, functioning under the Commissionerate of CT and GST, Odisha with the conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1182 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - existence of legally recoverable debt or not - mis-use of cheque - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- A mere denial that the cheque is not issued for legally recoverable debt would not be sufficient enough to hold that there was no legally recoverable debt on record. The materials on record has been properly considered by the learned Magistrate which was re-appreciated by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in the first appeal. In such circumstances, even after perusing the records and in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, this court does not find any patent defect on record nor there is any error of jurisdiction or law which would entitle the accused to seek for interference by this court in this Revision Petition.
The sentence passed by the learned Magistrate which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court in so far as the simple imprisonment is concerned is excessive as there is no reason assigned for awarding simple imprisonment. Since there is no fine amount ordered against the State, if Revision Petitioner in ordered to pay fine of ₹ 3,05,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordering sum of ₹ 5,000/- as fine to the State and maintaining the compensation amount payable to the complainant in a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
The Revision Petition is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court is hereby set aside.
............
|
