|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1125 Records
-
2020 (11) TMI 1025
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record it is found that the demand notice dated 27.06.2019 is issued by advocate Mr. Avneesh Garg on behalf of the operational creditor (page 26-35). The applicant has not put on record any document authorising Mr. Avneesh Garg, advocate to issue demand notice. Thus, the demand notice is issued by the advocate without any authority. Moreover, the demand notice is not supported by documents like copy of invoices etc. - On perusal of the records it is also found that the respondent has produced a copy of letter/email, raising a dispute regarding quality of the goods supplied by the applicant. From the above it is evident that much before issuance of demand notice dated 27.06.2019, there is/was a dispute between the parties regarding quality of the goods.
In the instant application, the material placed on record by both the parties clearly establish that there is/was dispute regarding quality of the goods supplied to the respondent by the Applicant. That apart, the advocate who has issued the demand notice is/was not authorised to issue the demand notice - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1024
Seeking rectification of mistake - omission to make certain additions in the judgment and order dated 15th October, 2020 passed by this Court disposing of the related Writ Petition - HELD THAT:- The scope of the present Interim Application is very limited i.e. whether while allowing the two Writ Petitions, certain portion of the prayer made by the Applicant as the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.3502 of 2020 got omitted and which is required to be added, nonetheless, we are of the view that since learned Addl. Solicitor General has submitted that Respondents are filing SLP within a day or two, hearing of this Interim Application may be deferred for a week.
Stand over to 3rd December, 2020 as was directed earlier.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1023
Seeking approval of Resolution Plan - section 30(6) read with section 31(1) of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the applicant who is the resolution professional as well as the CoC wants to continue with the same valuer, i. e., GAA Advisory who is well aware of the facts of the case and has done valuation of the corporate debtor earlier. On the other hand, the Corporation Bank does not have faith on the CoC, the RP as well as the GAA Advisory and therefore, wants this Tribunal to appoint a fresh valuer for conducting the valuation process.
The Corporation Bank holds approximately only about 7 per cent. of the share in the CoC and has time and again raised objections which has resulted in delay in the process of CIRP. As mentioned by the resolution professional, the corporate debtor has already crossed 550 days of CIRP and is incurring huge expenditure.
With a view to expedite the process, as the GAA Advisors are already aware of the position of the corporate debtor, it is advisable to continue with the same valuer. Also, majority of the CoC, under its commercial wisdom has agreed for the appointment of GAA Advisory - Application allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1022
Seeking order directing the resolution professional to arrange to hand over vacant possession of the leased out premises to the applicant - direction for payment of the lease rental payment from the month of August, 2019 till the period when the properties under lease to the corporate debtor are handed over to the applicant - HELD THAT:- The respondent/IRP in the present case, has admitted the claim of the applicant towards the rental arrears for the period from April 1, 2014 till August 1, 2019 to the tune of ₹ 66,79,260. The applicant in the present application is seeking a direction from this Tribunal to direct the respondent to pay the rent for the CIRP period, during which the respondent is in possession of the premises. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to put forth an argument that the lease deed was not renewed and as such they are not liable to pay any rent to the applicant. The said argument of learned counsel for the respondent is not sustainable in view of the fact that the respondent herself has admitted the claim of the applicant to the tune of ₹ 66,79,260 for the period from April 1, 2014 till August 1, 2019 by relying on the same lease agreement entered into between the parties and as such for the purpose of defeating the claim of the applicant, the respondent cannot take a different stand. Thus the respondent cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time in relation to the said issue.
The corporate debtor itself has not paid the rental dues to the applicant since the month of June 2014. Even though the corporate debtor has not paid the rent from the month of June 2014, the respondent herself, as already stated, has admitted the rental arrears to the tune of ₹ 66,79,260 for the period from April 1, 2014 till August 1, 2019 and hence non-payment of the rent by the corporate debtor for the period from June 2014 would not absolve the respondent/RP to pay the rent for the CIRP period - this Tribunal is unable to comprehend as to how the respondent/RP who is in possession of the premises is not willing to pay the rent during the CIRP period.
The respondent/RP shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the land and building at Chennivakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, to the applicant within 30 days starting from November 5, 2020 - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1021
Dishonor of Cheque - whether the course adopted by the High Court to remand the matter to the trial court after more than 30 years to cure the defect which goes to the root of the trial, though permissible in law, is justified? - offences by companies - Section 141 of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- A three-Judge Bench of this Court in ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS (P.) LTD. [2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] considered the question of conviction of the Directors in the absence of the Company in proceedings Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 For short, the NI Act as also in the proceedings under Information Technology Act, 2000. This Court held that Section 141 of the NI Act dealing with offences by companies contemplates that every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1020
As per Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member(T)
Seeking restoration of name of company in the ROC - Section 248 (5) of the Act and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of names of companies from the Register of the Companies) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not given any cogent or convincing reason as to why the company was not in operation and the reasons provided by him about lack of electric supply and available manpower and poor market conditions are not convincing when we know that many other companies having similar businesses and production were functioning in the said time period. Moreover, the appellant failed to take any action to acquire the status of 'Dormant Company' by resorting to action under Section 455 of the Act. In addition, the company did not even care to file necessary balance sheets and annual returns for any of the financial years in question. The entire conduct of the directors of the company point to a situation that the company was not operational and the directors were not interested in running the company and take action as required under law.
There are no cogent reason preferred by the appellant that could be considered as providing 'just' ground for restoring the name of the company in the register of companies - it is succinctly clear that Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore has acted in pursuance of the provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. He has complied with the procedural requirements as outlined in Section 248(1) of the Act and therefore his action of striking off the name of the Company M/s. Shri Laxmi Spinners Private Limited from the Register of Companies has full force of law. Moreover the appellant has not been able to make out a case in his favour as to why it would be 'just' to restore the name of his company in the register of companies in accordance with the provision of Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The decision of NCLT, Chennai Bench in dismissing the appeal is, therefore, correct.
As per Venugopal M. J
It is to be remembered that the right to seek restoration of a name of a company to the register of companies maintained by the 'Registrar of Companies' is not lost as long as 20 years have not expired. A 'Creditor' in Section 252 of the Companies Act ought to be construed widely so as to include a 'creditor' whose debt was contingent or prospective. In restoring a company to the register of companies, the court has no jurisdiction to impose any penalty for the defaults under the Act, but may order costs as a term of restoration - A dissolved company has no legal existence and, therefore, it cannot carry on business operations in accordance with the objects clause or Memorandum of Articles of Association. The effect of dissolution is that the certificate of incorporation issued to the Company is deemed to be cancelled from the date of dissolution.
In the instant case on hand, the reasons assigned by the Appellant that due to inadvertence and deficient professional advice the Company had not filed the 'Balance Sheets' and 'Annual Returns' for some time, the Consultant who was entrusted with the filing of 'Returns', had no knowledge of Company Law requirements and that there was no proper superintendence to ensure that the statutory filings were completed within the time period are not acceded to by this Tribunal.
The impugned order of the 'National Company Law Tribunal', Chennai Bench is set aside - application allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1019
Maintainability of application - Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - maintainability of simultaneous proceedings under SARFAESI Act and IBC - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The identical issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS MAHESH BANSAL [2020 (6) TMI 688 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] where it was held that The pendency of actions under the SARFAESI Act or actions under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not create obstruction for filling an Application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, specially in view of Section 238 of IBC.
Thus, it is now trite that pendency of actions under the SARFAESI Act by the Financial Creditor is not a bar for filling an Application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, especially in view of Section 238 of IBC. Further, the proceedings under IBC, 2016 cannot be said to be a parallel proceedings since the Application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 is filed to bring about a Resolution for the Corporate Debtor, on the other hand the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 is for recovery of the amount which is due and payable to the Financial Creditor.
Existence of debt and dispute or not - amount of default involved - HELD THAT:- There is a debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor is unable to repay its dues to the Financial Creditor - It is also seen that the present Application has been filed before this Tribunal on 17.06.2020 and as such the Notification issued by the Central Government in this regard by increasing threshold limit from ₹ 1 Lakh to ₹ 1 Crore would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the amount claimed to be in default is already more than ₹ 1 Crore.
It is also noted that the Central government by way of an amendment inserted in Section 10A of I&B Code, 2016 wherein the default in respect of the dues arising from the period 25.03.2020 till 25.09.2020, (now extended upto 25.12.2020) has been excluded and as such in the present case from Part-IV of the Application it is seen that the default has occurred much prior to 25.03.2020 and hence Section 10A of I&B Code, 2016 also would not come to the aid of the Corporate Debtor - this Application as filed by the Applicant-Financial Creditor is required to be admitted under Section 7 (5) of the I&B Code, 2016.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1018
TP Adjustment - treating outstanding receivables from AEs as a separate international transaction and making adjustment by way of imputation of interest thereon - HELD THAT:- As outstanding receivables from AEs would constitute a separate international transaction on which imputation of interest is to be made by applying LIBOR + 200 basis points as under:-
a. In respect of invoices raised in earlier years by the assessee on its AEs, where the amounts were realized during the year under consideration but beyond the agreed credit period, imputation of interest is to be made from first day of April or from the expiry of the agreed credit period (i.e 30 days as accepted by ld DRP) whichever is later till the date of realization of debts.
b. In respect of invoices raised during the year on its AEs, where the amounts were realized during the year itself but beyond the agreed credit period, imputation of interest is to be made from the date of expiry of agreed credit period till the date of realization of debts.
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2013-14 and 2014-15 with regard to transfer pricing adjustment made on account of imputation of interest on outstanding receivables from AEs are disposed off in the aforesaid manner.
Determination of ALP @5% of reimbursement from AE - Marking up@5% on the expenses being the travel cost of deputed employees paid on behalf of AE and recovered the same at cost from AEs as related to provision of services - HELD THAT:- We find that no arguments were advanced by the ld. AR with regard to these grounds. We find that the ld. DRP had dismissed this issue on the ground that assessee has not filed any details to demonstrate that these were mere reimbursements on cost to cost basis. Accordingly, the ld. DRP found it appropriate to direct the ld. TPO to apply mark up of 5% (as against 10% adopted by the ld. TPO) and recompute the adjustment. No efforts were taken by the assessee before us to improve its case beyond what was stated before ld. DRP with regard to this issue. Hence, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the directions of ld. DRP and consequentially in the final assessment order passed by the ld. AO pursuant to directions of ld. DRP in respect of this ground. Accordingly, the ground raised on mark up on reimbursements is hereby dismissed.
Direction of the ld. DRP to adopt mark-up of 10% on the reimbursement received by the assessee from AEs - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld. TPO had adopted on adhoc basis of 10% mark-up on reimbursement from AEs which was reduced by the ld. DRP to 5%. We have already held in assessee‟s appeal in respect of this issue that assessee had not provided any further details to prove that the reimbursement from AE was done on cost to cost basis. In the absence of those details, there is nothing wrong in adopting mark-up on some reasonable basis. We find that mark-up of 5% adopted by the ld. DRP is reasonable in the facts and circumstances in the instant case and does not warrant any interference thereon. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1017
Challenge to SCN before completion of enquiry and the proceedings - interference to SCN at pre-mature stage - HELD THAT:- As there is nothing which precludes the Petitioner from raising the contentions in this Writ Petition in the reply to be submitted to the Third Respondent, who is bound to deal with the same before coming to any ultimate conclusion, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere at this pre-mature stage of the matter.
It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to submit his explanation with all supporting documents and comply with the requirements as sought in the impugned order by 31.12.2020. The Third Respondent shall, after affording full opportunity of hearing, duly consider the explanation of the Petitioner, deal with the each of the contentions raised and pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law and communicate decision taken under written acknowledgment.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1016
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - allegation against the petitioner is that he has conspired with the other accused and engaged them to commit murder - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is an influential person and he will tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. In view of the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to find out more facts. The learned State Public Prosecutor also referred to status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. From the status report, it is seen that A2, A11 and A13 surrendered and A3 to A10, A12 and A14 were arrested. In the status report, it is not stated whether the accused persons A.2 to A.14 are still in custody or they were released on bail.
The apprehension of the learned State Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor is that unless the petitioner is taken into custody and interrogated, he will tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. It is seen that the petitioner is not apprehended for one year from date of occurrence and all other accused were released on bail. Considering the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions, as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate II, Hosur, Krishnagiri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Hosur, Krishnagiri, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed - Bail application allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1015
Higher rate of depreciation - Depreciation on the vehicles as supplied to the Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., under a contract for transporting LPG cylinders - @ 30% or 15% - nature of assessee business - whether an assessee is entitled to claim higher depreciation at the rate of 30%? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee is involved in supplying her vehicles on the basis of a contract, for the purpose of transportation of LPG Cylinders of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. This clearly shows that the business of the appellant is, facilitating transportation. The consideration is paid by the hirers on the basis of rates per kilometre.
Thus as relying on decision of Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.C.Thakur and Bros. [2009 (1) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holding that higher rate of depreciation of 30% is applicable to motor lorries used in transportation business. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1014
Cancellation of compounding as permitted in the year 2014-15 - undisclosed purchases - failure to pay tax - after filing a revised return including the undisclosed purchases there could have been a best judgment assessment carried out by the assessing officer or not.
Whether failure to pay tax under section 6(2) would entail cancellation of the permission granted under section 8(c) or not - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal relied on rule 11(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 to find that any failure to pay tax under section 6(2) would entail cancellation of the permission granted under section 8(c). The finding based on the statutory provision is unassailable and the first question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Whether after filing a revised return including the undisclosed purchases there could have been a best judgment assessment carried out by the assessing officer? - HELD THAT:- It was rightly found that the filing of a revised return, after finalisation of penalty proceedings, payment of compounding fee as also the tax shortfall with interest would not absolve the assessee from a best judgment assessment if there is a pattern of suppression detected. On facts, it was found that the suppression was substantial amounting to more than ₹ 10,00,000. This alone would lead to a valid inference of a pattern of suppression. There are no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The question framed is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Where the cancellation is carried out and the assessment is concluded on a best judgment basis there can be no remand made for applying the beneficial provisions; if the cancellation and regular assessment carried out are unassailable. In the present case, we have upheld both the cancellation and regular assessment. There is no scope for application of section 25AA.
Revision rejected.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1013
Validity of Ex-parte adinterim order dated October 20, 2020 passed by the Whole Time Member - attachment of demat accounts and bank accounts of respondent - Section 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - HELD THAT:- The direction of the WTM to deposit a sum of ₹ 1292.46 crore is wholly arbitrary and has been passed without any application of mind. Admittedly, the sale consideration has to be distributed to the shareholders of the Company after meeting the tax liability, indemnity, transaction cost, debt outstanding etc. According to the Company which is recorded in the impugned order, the total amount comes to ₹ 1026.44 crore and the balance left for distribution of the shareholders is ₹ 854.40 crore which amount is also reflected in the annual report 2018-19 as well as in the report of BSE dated December 12, 2019 - the direction to deposit the entire sale consideration of ₹ 1292 is neither appropriate nor beneficial to the survival of the Company at this stage. The fact that 50% of the sale consideration is also required to be distributed to the promoters and promoters group has not been disputed by the respondent.
The respondent knowing fully well that a substantial amount was parked in fixed deposits, the direction to the appellant to deposit ₹ 1292. 46 crore in an escrow account is neither just nor proper especially when there is no specific finding on diversion of funds. The written note submitted by SEBI further indicates that a sum of ₹ 1002 crore is lying in fixed deposits - the direction to deposit further amount would cripple the Company and bring it to down to its knees which is neither in the interest of the Company nor in the interest of its shareholders.
The appellant no. 1 Company shall deposit a sum of ₹ 500 crore in a separate escrow account within 10 days from today, the details of which would be supplied to SEBI and to the stock exchanges - Appeal allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1012
Principle of forum conveniens - Territorial limits of jurisdiction - Appropriate forum to make Settlement Application - Petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad in the State of Telangana, aggrieved by the action taken against him by the Second Respondent, whose office is also situated at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana - Settlement application filed before before the First Respondent, viz., Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai - seat of authority of First Respondent is stared to be situated at Chennai - HELD THAT:- The reason stated by the Petitioner for having approached this Court instead of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad is that the 'seat of authority' of the First Respondent is situated at Chennai within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Court. Even if it is assumed that in addition to the High Court of Telangana, this Court would also have territorial jurisdiction, the principle of forum conveniens would come into play as held by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in C. RAMESH VERSUS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [2013 (6) TMI 888 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, there does not appear to be any justification to entertain the Writ Petitions for the relief sought in this Court. Though obvious, it is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of controversy involved in the matter.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1011
Withdrawal of a Resolution Plan post approval - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
Till the next date of listing, there shall be an ad-interim stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No 653 of 2020.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1010
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - Suo moto disallowance rejected - AO invoked direct, proportionate interest and administrative expenses disallowance u/Rule 8D(2)(i) to (iii) as against the suo moto disallowance offered at the tax Payer’s behest - revenue argued that in Maxopp Investment Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] has already settled the law that such a disallowance relating to an assessee’s exempt income has to be made - HELD THAT:- We do not find any merit in the Revenue’s foregoing contention. We make it clear that the issue before us is not that of application but computation of Section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance since the CIT(A) has only directed the Assessing Officer to quantify the same to the extent of exempt income only as per hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision as well as Joint Investment P. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s directions under challenge. The Revenue fails in its first and foremost substantive ground.
Section 14A r.w.r. 8D disallowance for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act under MAT computation - This tribunal’s Special Bench decision in ACIT Vs Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] has already settled the law that such a disallowance is not to be included in the MAT computation. We thus decline Revenue’s third substantive ground’s argument as well.
Admission of additional claim without filing a revised return - additional depreciation - Addition being balance 10% on the cost of machinery which was put to use for less than 180 days during the preceding year - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in the Revenue’s grievance. We make it clear that the hon’ble apex court’s decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] holds that same does not impinge upon the appellate authorities’ jurisdiction vested under the provisions of the Act. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Budhewal Co-operative Society Ltd. [2013 (5) TMI 802 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] also holds that a tax payer is very much entitled to raise an additional claim without filing a revised return. The Revenue’s pleadings nowhere indicate that there is any distinction on facts since the assessee’s identical additional depreciation claim stood allowed in A.Y. 2013-14 as well - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1009
Dishonor of Cheque - Acquittal of the accused - rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Whether the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused on coming to the conclusion that the complainant has not proved the case and whether it requires interference by this Court? - HELD THAT:- When the accused had rebutted the evidence of the complainant, the complainant did not make any efforts to prove the fact that goods were supplied to the accused. The onus is on the complainant first to prima facie place the material before the Court for having supplied the goods and the same has not been proved. No doubt, the accused also did not enter the witness box, but, the fact remains that in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, material answers are elicited regarding non-supply of the goods that there is no material for supply of goods and when such being the case, the accused has to make out his case only in preponderance of probabilities and the same has been done by the accused.
It is also settled law that while reversing the judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court can reverse the finding of the trial Court if the reasoning given by the trial Court is perverse and if the material on record is not considered by the trial Court which are available and there is some mistake apparent on the record, then only the Appellate Court can reverse the finding - there are no error committed by the trial Court or there is any perversity or non-consideration of material available on record.
The Appeal is dismissed - Registry is directed to pay an amount of ₹ 3,000/- as honorarium to the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1008
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - mandatory sanction as not taken from the rank of the joint Commissioner of income tax according to Section 151 (2) - HELD THAT:- As relying on YUM! RESTAURANTS ASIA PTE. LTD.case [2017 (9) TMI 120 - DELHI HIGH COURT]as no proper approval has been taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 151 of the income tax act by the learned assessing officer at the time of issuing 147 of the act, all the proceedings subsequent to that point makes all the orders passed by the respective revenue authorities as Nullity. Appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
2020 (11) TMI 1007
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Accommodation entries obtained by the assessee from the entry operator - HELD THAT:- AO referred to six years of records of the entry operator but does not mention how he proposes to reopen the impugned assessment for AY 2008-09. There is no reference that how the report of investigation wing as well his own assessment gives him belief that, AY 2008- 09 is required to be reassessed. Further there is no reference as what nature of accommodation entries has been obtained by the assessee, through which companies and on which dates, though which medium. May be in assessment order complete details are mentioned, and they are in fact exhaustively mentioned, however the reasons recorded are devoid of the same. Therefore we do not have any hesitation in quashing reopening of assessment - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1006
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 to issue Electronic Discharge Certificate - HELD THAT:- This court passed the order granting direction to issue the certificate - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law against the order dated 17.11.2020.
............
|
9911796707
