|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1887 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1772
Service of notice - appellant submitted that before treating the petition for winding up as am application under Section 9 of the I&B Code the respondent has not complied with the provisions of the I&B Code as no notice under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the I&B Code was issued in Form 3 or 4 and the application has been admitted though there is existence of a dispute.
HELD THAT:- In the present case as notice under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of I&B code has not been issued by the Respondent (operational creditor), we hold that the application preferred by the Respondent was incomplete. In this circumstances, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai and declare that the application preferred by the Respondent under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 stands abated.
The order (s) passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority appointing any ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ declaring moratorium, freezing of account and all other order (s) passed by Adjudicating Authority pursuant to impugned order and action, if any, taken by the ‘Resolution Professional’, including the advertisement, if any, published in the newspaper calling for applications all such orders and actions are declared illegal and are set aside. The application preferred by Respondent is dismissed - Adjudicating Authority will fix the fee of ‘Interim Resolution Professional ‘, and the appellant will pay the fees of the ‘Resolution Professional’, for the period he has functioned.
Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1771
Eligibility for 80IC deduction - adjustment of proportionate R&D expenditure certified by DSIR in Form 3CL by the AO is unwarranted as these R&D expenditures does not relate to HP unit - HELD THAT:- R&D expenditure certified by DSIR is location specific and recognition of R&D unit by DSIR is given only for R&D unit in Hosur. On the other hand, the Revenue pleads that the assessee is carrying out research & development activities relating to automotive seating applications. The research activities cover seating applications for Buses, Trucks, Tractors and Two-wheelers.
The research activities encompassing product conceptualization, designing, development of sample lots, testing and commercialization. The benefits of such research is availed by all the units of the assessee and hence the R& D expenditure has to be apportioned. AO as well as the CIT (A) have given a concurrent findings. In spite of it, from the entire pleadings it is clear that the assessee has not disputed such facts. It has not laid any material to say that the unit in the Himachal Pradesh has not availed or is not or would not avail the benefits of the impugned R& D etc and hence the apportionment made by the AO and as modified by the CIT(A) is upheld. On the above facts and circumstances, the case laws relied on by the assessee are held as not applicable .The assessee’s grounds fail.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1770
Appointment of original respondent No. 3 as director - allotment of shares - appellants criticised the impugned judgment of the National Company Law Tribunal and stated that the finding that resolution dated October 8, 2013 is invalid is wrong - HELD THAT:- The notice had been issued to the petitioner regarding the meeting to be held on December 7, 2016 and he submitted detailed comments which the board of directors considered and discarded. There was then further meeting on December 26, 2016 the petitioner filed I.A. No. 38 of 2016 in the National Company Law Tribunal, but he did not participate in the meetings. The board of directors took decision considering the affairs of the company to tide over their financial difficulties and if that was done, the same could not have been set aside merely by observing that there was no justification for the acts of the respondents or that there was undue haste. The justification is borne out from the minutes of these meetings - When procedure is followed and steps taken, the acts could not have been questioned branding them as undue haste. Such considerations of the board cannot be found fault with being matters of company affairs. If the petitioner had difficulty, he should have participated in the meetings to say whatever he wanted. In the facts of present matter, we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned National Company Law Tribunal.
When the National Company Law Tribunal could not record finding of oppression or mismanagement and there was material to show that the petitioner had not come with clean hands, it was not open for the learned National Company Law Tribunal to still go on to set aside the appointment of respondent No. 3 and set aside shares issued as per the resolution passed on December 26, 2016 or give direction that the respondents will purchase the shares of the petitioner. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order of the National Company Law Tribunal is quashed and set aside - petition dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1769
Disallowance of exemption u/s 54F - residential house property purchased in the name of his wife - HELD THAT:- In light of legal proposition so laid down in case of Mahadev Balai [2017 (1) TMI 183 - ITAT JAIPUR] where the investment in the new house property has flown from the assessee, which is not in dispute in the instant case, merely for the reason that the new residential house property has been purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife, the same cannot be basis for the denial of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act.
Regarding the second condition of claiming the deduction u/s 54F as have gone through the affidavit so filed by the assessee and are of the view that the same is clear and self-explanatory wherein the assessee has categorically stated that on the date of purchase of residential property, which happens to be the date prior to date of sale of the original asset, he didn’t own any other house other than the new asset. In that view of the matter, the contention so raised by the ld AR is accepted.
Assessee is held eligible for deduction under section 54F in respect of residential house property purchased in the name of his wife. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1768
Disallowance u/s 14A (2) - AO disallowed certain amounts after rejecting the assessee’s explanation with respect to the statutory disallowance on an application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules - Commissioner granted the relief which was confirmed by the ITAT - HELD THAT:- The issue in the opinion of this Court is now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT]. In that judgment, the Court confirmed the opinion of various High Courts bringing to tax any amount under Section 14A and applying the Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer has to record prima facie satisfaction that the claim of the assessee is inadmissible. In the present case, no such satisfaction was recorded. The ITAT’s conclusions are, therefore, justified. No substantial question of law arises
-
2017 (12) TMI 1767
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued an order to challenge the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 in CWP No.27730 of 2017. Notice of motion was given to respondents No.1 to 4 for 25.1.2018. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh was directed not to pass the final order in the meantime.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1766
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor defaulted in making repayment in respect to ECB facility - existence of debt and default or not - Whether there is any defect in the Power of Attorney as stated by the Debtor or not? - HELD THAT:- The ground reality is, debt and default are not in dispute, that means the creditor proved its case; law cannot become an impediment to achieve justice basing on this reality. In the section of law or in the Rules, it has nowhere been mentioned that power of attorney should not file a case on behalf of the company, it only says that financial creditor can file. The terminology of authorised person is generic in nature, whereas, power of attorney is specific in nature. The phrase "authorised person" is a caption in general, encompassing the caption of "power of attorney", because "power of attorney" is also nothing but authorisation with more rigours. Moreover, the word "Authorised Person" is loosely used without defining it, therefore, the usage of this word "Authorised Person" in the form annexed to Rules cannot invalidate the power of attorney. Power of Attorney defines principal and agent relationship. When an agent is chosen to deal with certain subjects, it need not be seen in which form that subject is, the point to be seen whether subject matter authority is given to him or not - this power of attorney is binding on the creditor bank, therefore, this power of attorney shall be held as valid authorization to proceed against the debtor.
Whether pending of appeal over the order dismissing winding up petition against the Corporate Debtor, will have any bearing over adjudication of this case or not? - HELD THAT:- If the proposition of law does not stop the decree upon which appeal is filed, it is far fetching to say that IBC proceedings shall not be initiated looking at an appeal pending over some other proceedings filed against this Corporate Debtor. For the sake of clarity, we reiterate that winding up petition was dismissed against this very corporate debtor. Therefore, this argument of the corporate Debtor counsel saying this case shall not proceed because of pendency of an appeal over the dismissal order over the winding up petition does not hold any merit.
Whether this case has to be postponed or not on the ground that on reference (in the matter of Union Bank of India vs. Era Infra Engineering Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1078 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] to the larger Bench on the issue of as to that whether proceeding under IBC can be triggered while winding up petition pending before the respective High Courts against the same Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- Since no winding up petition is pending before High Court as of now against this corporate debtor, except an appeal on dismissal order, this petition cannot be kept under suspension by looking at a fight this very corporate debtor fighting before Appellate Authority for confirmation of the original order. In view of the same the ratio decided in those cases is not applicable to the present case.
Whether Reserve Bank of India directives pursuant to the Banking Regulations (Amendment) Act, 2017 has any bearing on adjudication of this case or not? - HELD THAT:- Any circular that is in recommendatory in nature and suggesting IBC proceedings in 12 accounts will not amount to depriving other accounts to be filed before this Adjudicating Authority under IBC provided they fall within the ambit of IBC. Henceforth, we have not found any merit in this argument canvassed by the corporate debtor.
Whether Facility Agreements have been inadequately stamped as stated by the Corporate Debtor, if so, whether this petition can be admitted basing on such inadequately stamped Agreement? - HELD THAT:- The corporate debtor counsel has nowhere mentioned how much stamp duty is to be paid, how much is not paid by the Petitioner, his hypothetical argument will not be relevant to decide any case because duty is cast upon the person raising objection. Moreover, facility agreement alone is not the document to prove this case, there is surplus material to prove that debt and default are in existence whereby, this argument is not sufficient enough to deny the claim of Petitioner herein, henceforth, the argument of the corporate debtor is hereby dismissed.
Whether formation of Joint Lender Forum will have any bearing over filing of this case or not? - HELD THAT:- It has already been held by the Hon'ble NCLAT Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 959 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] that JLF proceedings pending against the corporate debtor will not have any bearing on the cases initiated under IBC, therefore, this plea is hereby dismissed without having any further consideration on this point.
Whether the Statement of Account filed by DBS is in compliance with Part V Serial No. 7 of Form No. 1 or not? - HELD THAT:- The inconsistency is the benchmark to invoke non-obstante clause of this Code upon other enactments. I must also say that when there is a categoric admission falling under Indian Evidence Act, that admission need not be put to proof as envisaged under Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. Here, when a specific case has been put to the Corporate Debtor saying that the Corporate Debtor borrowed money and failed to repay the same, this Corporate Debtor has nowhere denied about existence of debt and occurrence of default.
The Petitioner herein has furnished all the material to prove the existence of debt and occurrence of default.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1765
Reopening of assessment - Exemption from sales u/s 5(3) of the CST Act, 1956 - sales effected by M/s.Tea Serve to exporters in the auction center - rejection of benefit on the ground that petitioners have not complied with G.O.Ms.876 dated 29.07.1982 - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. THE UNITED NILGIRI TEA ESTATES CO. LTD., M/S. STANES AMALGAMATED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (FAC) , THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2017 (12) TMI 689 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that fulfilment of condition as specified in the notification is mandatory.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for redoing the assessment in accordance with law.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1764
Provisional release of detained goods - authorities have not disclosed any reason contemplated therein to obstruct provisional release of the goods - CBEC Circular 35/2017-Customs dated 16th August, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Now that representation has been made by a partner of the firm who had imported the goods, the respondent no.1 is to consider and dispose of the same within ten days from date. For the purpose of dealing with the representation the said respondent will call for hearing of the person making the representation as well as DRI. In dealing with the representation the said respondent, if is to exercise discretion to deny provisional release of the goods, must take care to give reasons within the scope of the observations of the Madras High Court as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said circular.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1763
Approval of Resolution Plan - learned counsel appearing for EXIM Bank submitted that the bank has not yet been supplied with a copy of the resolution plan - application for stay of the present proceedings has been filed and is now sub judice before the Hon'ble NCLAT - HELD THAT:- The PCS representing the RP submitted that he is not aware of filing of such stay application. However, there is no stay till date - As of today there is no stay from Hon'ble NCLAT in respect of proceeding of this Tribunal or for pronouncement of order on approval or otherwise of the resolution plan, therefore, this court can proceed further to pass an order. However, this order would be subject to outcome of pending appeal and appropriate directions that may be issued by the NCLAT in pending appeal.
The Committee of Creditors in its meeting held on December 07, 2017 has approved the resolution plan as submitted by M/s Atyant Capital India Fund - I through voting (of more than 80%) in its favour as per Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Regulation 39(3), of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulation, 2016. Subsequently, the State Bank of India also which earlier remained absent in such voting. Later on it has duly concurred with the CoC, such decision dated 07.12.2017 for approval of the resolution plan. Hence, it is deemed that 100% of CoC member has agreed for and approved the resolution plan as submitted by the Atyant Capital India Fund - The RP received a legal opinion and vetting from M/s Luthra & Luthra, M/s Vinod Kothari & Co. and M/s J. Sagar & Associates, all of them have confirmed the resolution plan opining that such Plan is in conformity with the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 2016. As the Resolution Applicant M/s Atyant Capital India Fund has made such declaration that the Resolution Plan does not contravene any provision of the law for time to time being in force which is annexed with the present application and to be formed part of the resolution plan.
A perusal of Proposed Resolution Plan shows that all the requirement of the IBC and CIRP regulations have been complied with. Further, the proposed Resolution Plan seems to be bona fide and beneficial to the interest of the company, nor it is forbidden by law - Therefore, this court being an Adjudicating Authority is not expected to substitute its view with Commercial Wisdom of the RP and CoC nor it should deal with technical complexity and merits of Resolution Plan unless it found contrary to express provision of law and goes against the public interest.
Application allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1762
Deduction u/s 80IAB - case of the Revenue that the assessee does not qualify for exemption u/s 80IAB as it is not doing any business activity, but is simply letting out the property - provisions of SEZ Act over riding effect over Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- Assessee is a developer under the SEZ Act and is in the business of developing a SEZ, the SEZ has been notified on the first day of April 2005 under the Special Economic Zone Act 2005 ; and the profits have been derived from the business of development, operation and maintenance of SEZ.
We thus fully agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that all the conditions as required to be specified under the SEZ Act/Rules are fulfilled and the assessee is approved developer for all the intent and purposes of Section 80 IAB I.T of the Act. Consequent upon approval granted by the BOA for transfer of bare shell to the co-developer, the profits arising to the assessee forms such an authorized transaction are eligible for deduction u/s 80IAB - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1761
Dishonor of cheque - acquittal of accused - ignorance of presumption that arose for dishonor of cheque - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the cheque in the sum of ₹ 4,17,148/- was issued by respondent No.1-accused as was duly proved by the complainant and the said cheque was dishonored. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had issued a legal notice under Section 138 of the NI Act, on 09.06.1999 but that was not even replied to by respondent No.1-accused and the accused had failed to make payment also - The complainant entered the witness-box and proved all the above facts and not only that he also proved that there was liability against respondent No.1 in the matter of purchase of goods from the appellant-company.
The complainant had proved its case with precision that the cheque was dishonored, though, the same was issued by respondent No.1 towards price of the goods. The trial Court also found that the defence taken by respondent No.1 that the cheque was stolen by the appellant-company was afterthought - The very object of brining section 138 of NI Act and provision of Section 139 of NI Act for presumption was for early disposal of the claims of the parties. The said object was thus, defeated by the lower Appellate Court by giving reasons that the account book that was proved was not sufficient when the same is also evidence under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The reason given by the lower Appellate Court that he did not bring the cash book or order book etc. could well be understood, if civil suit is tried.
The judgment of the lower Appellate Court will have to be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court will have to be restored.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1760
Revision u/s 263 - case of inadequate enquiries OR not? - said contract is 'works contract', not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record except the suspicion of the Department that the assessing officer has not carried out adequate enquiries - issues have been enquired into replies have been placed on record nothing has been brought by the Department to show that the view taken by the assessing officer was incorrect on facts. The requisite agreements alongwith site plan Schedule etc. attached thereto were all available before the AO and before the Pr. CIT alongwith photographs etc.
No effort to distinguish the Contract entered into with Himachal Pradesh Govt. in respect of Thural Project with the subsequent contracts entered into by the assessee with Himachal Pradesh Government in respect of Dehra Project or with the Uttrakhand Govt. in respect of Pauri and Rudraprayag Projects have been referred to in his order by the Pr. CIT or in his arguments by the ld. CIT-DR. Mere argument that the three Projects were different without any supporting fact cannot be given a judicial approval. Suspicion may be said to be sufficient for the purposes of issuance of Show Cause Notice but thereafter, the suspicion has to be backed by hard facts.
Ultimately on the issue on which the order was passed setting aside the order admittedly was not the subject matter of the two show cause notices issued by the Pr. CIT Chandigarh and thus notwithstanding the settled legal position thereon even otherwise we find that in the facts of the present case on a reading of the assessment order itself it is demonstrated that the Assessing Officer has enquired into the said issue also.
AO while passing the order proceeded to look into the claim of depreciation for the exempted and non-exempt units and thus the suspicion of the Pr. CIT, Chandigarh that the facts for considering the bifurcation of expenses between the exempted income and non-exempt income have not been looked into is without any justification and in the peculiar facts of the present case based entirely on suspicions.
We find that there was no basis for the principal CIT-A to conclude that it is a case of inadequate enquiries. - Decided in favour of assessee.
assessing officer has inquired into the issues the assessee has demonstrated the correctness of the claim having been allowed the revenue having failed to point out as to what is the error in the specific contracts considered by the Pr. CIT, Chandigarh namely the contract entered into with the Himachal Pradesh government in regard to the Dehra Project and the two specific contracts entered into with the Uttrakhand Government of Pauri and Rudraprayag Project. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1759
Validity of reassessment proceeding - Bogus purchases - CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the addition to 3% of the value of purchases - HELD THAT:- No dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has correlated the purchase quantity with a particular sales/export, meaning thereby, the goods have reached the hands of the assessee. When the goods have reached, it may not be proper to disallow entire amount of purchases, since the assessee could not have sold the goods without purchasing the same.
CIT(A) has taken the support of the decision of Simit P Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and also Sanjay Olicake Industries [2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] to come to the conclusion that the profit element embedded in the purchases could be assessed. Since the purchases have been made from a group, which had taken a different stand, the Ld CIT(A) took the view that there is possibility of inflation of purchase price, from which the assessee could have made profit. The said profit was estimated at 3% on the basis of Benign Assessment procedure guidelines and the Transfer Pricing adjustments generally made.
The decision so reached by Ld CIT(A) cannot be found fault with - Decided against the revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1758
Disallowance u/s 80I/A - sales tax incentive received by the assessee - assessee treated the subsidy as revenue receipt and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA - first degree nexus between the sale of power and sales tax incentive - Whether sales tax subsidy is inextricable linked to the activity of generation of power ? - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S. PATANKAR WIND FARM PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2015 (5) TMI 147 - ITAT PUNE] no infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in disallowing assessee‟s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA on the sales tax subsidy. Accordingly, the impugned orders are upheld and both the appeals of assessee are dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1757
Bogus purchase - CIT(A) considering the GP @ 3% instead of adding 9% as was done by the AO - HELD THAT:- Only because the amount has been routed through banking channel would not establish the genuineness of the transaction as held by Hon’ble Jurisidictional High Court in the case of Naresh K. Pahuja [2015 (2) TMI 284 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] -
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and while relying upon judgments ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], CIT v Simit P, Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries [2008 (3) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus purchases, we are of the considered view that restricting the additions @ 3% of purchases by Ld. CIT(A) is unreasonable. The ends of justice would be met in case the additions are restricted @ 6 % of bogus purchases. Consequently orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) are set aside.
Issue of accommodation entries is a reality, to arrest such rampant malpractices, a restraint is always inevitable as we cannot encourage such malpractice of obtaining accommodation entries to avoid the impact of levies and defrauding revenue. Since it is proved on record that assessee was indulged in bogus purchases, therefore the assessee is not being given benefit to reduce already GP declared from GP ratio of 6%. Hence no benefit of GP is being given.
Direct the AO to restrict the additions to the extent of 6% of the bogus purchases for adding u/s 69C over and above the regular profits disclosed by the assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1756
Assessment u/s 153A - Addition on account of employees contribution to ESI and PF - whether no incriminating document was found during the course of search pertaining to the assessment year under consideration ? - HELD THAT:- Assessment in question was framed u/s 153A is not based on any incriminating material found or seized and therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of employees Contribution to ESI and PF is not justified and the same is deleted by following decisions of Delhi High Court in case Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia [2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1755
Liquidation of defaulter company - a Prayer has been made that there is an apprehension that the Directors of the Debtor Company may leave the country and also dispose of the properties - HELD THAT:- The interest of the Creditors as well as the interest of the other stake holders is required to be protected - As a consequence, the Directors are directed not to alienate or create any third party right in respect of the declared Assets of the Company and the Assets of the Directors.
The Insolvency Resolution Professional can also ear mark and identify the undeclared property, if any, found to be purchased out of the siphoned money of the Company and thereupon on identification those properties shall also not be dealt with in any manner by the Directors of their Representatives till further Orders of this Bench - Considering the progress of the Insolvency Proceedings and the Reports submitted by the Insolvency Professional, this Bench is of One view that to protect the interest of all the stakeholders and also to facilitate the proceedings these persons should not be allowed to leave the country without prior permission of this Bench of NCLT, Mumbai.
Application disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1754
Interpretation of Staute - whether the Chief Commissioner is appointed as appellate authority or Revisional Authority under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 for hearing grievance of the aggrieved against the order of the Principal Commissioner, nothing is the outcome? - HELD THAT:- Although on 26-4-2017 Revenue was informed to ascertain the capacity in which the Chief Commissioner functions under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, there is no reply from the Board and such silence is adding to litigations before the Tribunal - Bar submits today that a like nature case was before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Girish B. Mishra [2013 (6) TMI 179 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has dealt with the authority of Chief Commissioner in that case. It may be of great help for the Board to look into that case while replying to this Tribunal - We make it clear that if no reply is received by the Tribunal by 1st January 2018 it shall be treated that Chief Commissioner’s order under the above Regulation is an appealable order before Tribunal and Tribunal shall proceed with the matter as an appeal filed against his order.
Call the matter on 10th January, 2018.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1753
The Supreme Court modified an earlier order based on new Consent Terms dated 26.10.2017 and an Addendum dated 02.12.2017. The appellant agreed to abide by the new terms and pay sums due as per the agreement. Other related applications were disposed of or withdrawn accordingly.
............
|
9911796707
