|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1387 Records
-
2016 (2) TMI 1273
Income from house property computation - municipal taxes and maintenance charges deductibility while determining the income from house property - HELD THAT:- The factum of payment of taxes/maintenance charges is not in dispute. It is also noted from para 2 of the assessment order itself that the assessee furnished the necessary details as called for and after due verification, the same were kept on record. In the same breath, the ld. Assessing Officer and also the ld. DR, asserts that necessary details were not furnished. This assertion is contradicted by the finding contained in para -2 of the assessment order itself. Keeping in view, the totality of facts and the circumstances, we are of the view that income from house property is required to be computed on the basis of actual/bonafide rental value of letting out of the property. The municipal taxes and maintenance charges, which the assessee has undisputedly paid, has to be reduced from the rental income. Thereby, to ascertain the actual value such charges has to be excluded from the rent. Our view find support from the decision in the case Neelam Cable Manufacturing Company [1997 (8) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-A] and another decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Bombay Oil Industries [2000 (11) TMI 1225 - ITAT MUMBAI] in Sherrif Construction [2008 (12) TMI 761 - ITAT, BANGALORE]. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Dalhousie Properties Ltd. [1984 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] holding that liability in respect of municipal of taxes which an owner has to discharge is eligible for deduction.
Disallow interest paid for housing loan - Non following the procedure laid down in section 251(2) denying opportunity to the assessee of being heard - HELD THAT:- As per section 251, which deals with power of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, sub-section (2) says that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund, unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancements or reduction. It is also noted that in the impugned order, even there is no whisper to the effect that any show-cause notice was issued to the assessee. Even, from Form No.35, no such ground was raised. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has committed jurisdictional error while coming to a particular conclusion. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) neither called a remand report from the Assessing Officer nor asked the assessee to substantiate the issue, if, he was not satisfied with the assessment so framed. Even otherwise, no person should be condemned unheard unless and until opportunity is provided to him. The ratio laid down in Anusuya Suren Mirchandani vs ACIT [2013 (11) TMI 1660 - ITAT MUMBAI]supports the case of the assessee. Identical ratio was laid down in Dr. Yogiraj Sharma vs ACIT [2014 (11) TMI 1191 - ITAT INDORE]. Following the aforesaid decisions, this ground of the assessee is allowed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1272
Ex-parte interim order - prima facie view of SEBI that the business carried on by the appellants constituted CIS - whether SEBI by its confirmatory order dated August 24, 2015 is justified in continuing the directions contained in the ex-parte interim order dated June 3, 2015 until further orders? - whether SEBI is justified in turning down a request made by the Appellant by way of a Miscellaneous Application before this Tribunal seeking registration as CIS under the CIS Regulations, without prejudice to its right to contend that the schemes operated by it are not covered under CIS? - HELD THAT:- Appellants pending further investigation have agreed to be regulated by SEBI without prejudice to their rights and contentions that the schemes in question are not covered under CIS, we direct the appellants to make a without prejudice application seeking registration in respect of the refundable schemes in question preferably within one week from today and further direct SEBI to grant provisional registration to the Appellants as per the procedure prescribed under the CIS Regulations so that interest of investors/customers do not suffer, especially when it is found by SEBI that the business carried on by the appellants prima facie to be in accordance with law except that the said business is carried on without seeking registration from SEBI. Depending on the investigation report, SEBI may consider grant of final registration to the Appellants in accordance with law in due course of time. Needless to say that SEBI shall make an endeavor to complete the pending investigation expeditiously against the appellants so that the prima facie view of SEBI regarding the business activities of the appellants attains finality before hand in one way or the other.
For all the aforesaid reasons, while upholding the prima facie view of SEBI that the business carried on by the appellants constituted CIS, we set aside the directions given by SEBI in the impugned orders dated June 3, 2015 and August 24, 2015 and direct the Appellants to make an application for registration with SEBI in respect of the refundable schemes covered by the CIS Regulations, and further direct SEBI to grant provisional certificate of registration as provided under the CIS Regulations forthwith, and eventually on receipt of final investigation report, if found appropriate, grant final registration as per law, so that the schemes being operated by the Appellants are henceforth regulated so that the investors' interests are effectively and properly protected by SEBI.
Till the date of granting provisional registration, the Appellants may continue to receive subscription amount from the investors under the existing schemes. Accounts/records of the amounts collected thereunder, shall be maintained in a separate account and appellants shall not launch any new scheme except in accordance with law. The appellants shall also not alienate or create any encumbrance or third party rights on any of their properties except for repayment to the customers/investors
-
2016 (2) TMI 1271
Principles of Natural Justice - challenge in the present appeal is only on the short ground that he has not discussed the merits of the case and has gone by the earlier order - HELD THAT:- Apart from the fact that the earlier order of the Commissioner on the valuation aspect was accepted by the Revenue and no appeal was filed there-against, we also take into consideration the fact that the period involved in the present show cause notice stands already adjudicated by the Commissioner in the earlier order and as such he has rightly adopted the principles of res judicata, we find no merits to take a different view.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1270
No notice u/s 143(2) on the revised return furnished - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel appearing for the appellants are unable to produce the acknowledgement for having served the notice to the respondent-assessee as required under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, answering the substantial questions of law does not arise for consideration.
The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and recorded a clear finding of fact by assigning valid and cogent reasons, holding that no acknowledgment as such has been produced by the revenue, inspite of affording sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the reasoning given by the appellate authority and the appellate Tribunal is strictly in consonance with Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1269
Suppression of sales of cloth - application of the assessee filed for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the records that in spite of the repeated opportunities provided by the Assessing officer, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite evidence in support of its claim. It is also observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee took the plea that instead of sales figure of 15722.590 kgs was taken by the Assessing officer for computing closing stock, the actual sales were to the tune of 20273.73 kg. It is relevant to observe here that the assessee himself admitted in its letter dated 30.4.2007 that the total sales of cloth during the year under consideration was 15722.590 kg. Thus, the assessee has taken entirely a new stand in this case stating that actual sales figure is 20223.73 kg instead of 15722.590 kg. In such circumstances, the CIT(A) was fully justified in rejecting the application of the assessee filed for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.
As regards, merits of the case, we are also in agreement with the observations of the CIT(A) that admittedly the assessee vide its letter dated 30.4.2007 claimed that total sales of cloth during the year was at 15722.590 kgs. The assessee had purchased 27277 kgs of yarn out of which it produced 23886.86 kgs of cloth and sold cloth of 15722.590 kgs and declared 8435.823 kgs of cloth as its closing stock as on 31.3.2005. It is observed that before the CIT(A) the assessee had taken altogether a new plea that actual sales figures is 20223.73 kgs which appears to be an afterthought. In view of the assessee’s letter dated 30.4.2007 addressed to the Assessing officer, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was fully justified in rejecting the ground raised by the assessee on merits. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,70,013/- made on account of suppression of sales of cloth. Consequently, we reject ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal.
Addition for want of proof from the assessee - amount as being payable to its ex-partners - HELD THAT:- Assessee has contended that the Assessing officer disallowed the amount on account of cessation of trading liabilities ignoring the fact produced during the assessment proceedings that assessee itself has written off the balance amount of ₹ 1,44,966/- payable to M/s Nice Grip Tools & Exports in the assessment year 2006-07 and the assessment for which was finalized vide order dated 23.12.2008 without making any adverse inference in this regard. Taking into consideration the above contention of the assessee, we think it appropriate to set aside the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter to the Assessing officer with a direction to consider the above submissions of the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Unabsorbed brought forward depreciation - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to observe there that the orders of the lower authorities on this issue are cryptic and non-speaking. It is not clear as to whether assessment to the assessment year 2004-05 was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act or the return for that year was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In our opinion, the issue needs to be decided at the level of the Assessing officer. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1268
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - suo moto disallowance by assessee - non recording of satisfaction - HELD THAT:- After recording that satisfaction only AO can proceed to compute for determination of amount of expenditure incurred which is disallowable u/s 14A(2) of the Act. We could not find any such exercise made by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. He has merely stated that the assessee company had disclosed expenditure at 10% of the exempt income disallowable u/s 14A is not proper. Therefore without putting across and questioning the reasoning of 10% and without regard to the books of accounts and after that failure to record satisfaction, straight way invoking provision of section 14A and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 is not permissible.
Recharacterizing the short-term capital gain as business income - Whether short-term capital gain arising as per investment in portfolio management scheme could not be said to be business income? - HELD THAT:- On appreciation of cumulative facts are of the view that income of sale of mutual funds cannot be taxed under head business income but is chargeable to tax under the head capital gains. Furthermore, regarding the short-term capital gains of shares which is ₹ 762840/- we could not note that in most of the cases the period of holding is more than 100 days. The numbers of shares bought and sold were approximately 10 strips. The amount of turnover was also small. Looking at the turnover and overall facts of the case, we are of the view that profit on sale of share and mutual fund is chargeable to tax under the head capital gain only and not as business income. In view of the above facts, we reverse the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and direct the AO to charge profit on sale of mutual fund and shares including gain arising on mutual fund held in portfolio management scheme of the brokers under the head capital gain only. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1267
Grant of Regular Bail - charges have already been framed against the applicant - violation of provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is evident that the applicant has been charged with an economic offence of some magnitude. However, the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and filed the challan; the circumstance that charges already stand framed against the applicant; and the circumstance that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2015, cannot be lost sight of. Furthermore, it has not been urged on behalf of the prosecution that the applicant is a flight risk nor is there any material to suggest that he will tamper with the evidence. Therefore, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary.
The applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions - it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to further condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority and subject to further condition that the applicant shall remain present before the court on the date fixed for hearing of the case - Application disposed off.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1266
Additions u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and that no tax can be imposed on these additions - HELD THAT:- In “Sun Pharmaceuticals” (2013 (9) TMI 598 - ITAT, AMRITSAR), however, consequential higher deduction u/s 80IB of the Act on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been allowed, holding, inter-alia, that addition of income u/s 40(a)(ia) results into increase in the income of the assessee, which income would be profit derived from the industrial undertaking. The provision contained under section 80IB for computation of income was found to contain a mandate that where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any law, included in this Chapter under the heading, “C.- deductions in respect of certain income” in respect of any income of the nature specified in that section, which is included in the gross income of the assessee, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, for the purpose of computing deduction under that section, the amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act ( before making any deduction under this Chapter) shall alone to be deemed to the amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by the assessee and which is included in his gross total income.
The decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Sun Pharmaceuticals” (supra), as noted, was followed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2008-09. The facts in the present case of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 have not been shown to be any different from those present in the assessee’s case for the year under consideration, i.e., 2009-10. Moreover, the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for the AY 2008-09 has also not shown to have been accepted on appeal. It has also not been shown to have even been stayed. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1265
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that refund claim filed by the appellant is time barred on the ground that the relevant date for filing the refund claim under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) is the date of export of service or the date when the invoice was raised?
Appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1264
Adjudication of present appeal is that Human Care Medical Charitable Trust is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 - cancellation of lease deed - cancellation of allotment of land - lease deed cancelled alleging breach of a condition of the lease, in that, (office-bearers) of society having sold the demise land to a third party in a clandestine manner in order to earn profit out of a concessional allotment obtained in the name of the society.
HELD THAT:- It is evident that learned senior counsel for appellant DDA wants us to apply the principle of 'tracing' to conclude that the consideration (money) for sale of land in question had flown into the coffers of Mr.Naresh Chandra, the President of society at the time of execution of the lease-deed dated June 11, 1996.
In essence, learned senior counsel for appellant had argued that on applying principle of tracing, the position which would emerge is that when so-called loan advanced by the newly inducted members of the society is traced, the trail would end in the coffers of Mr.Naresh Chandra and his family members, which in turn would show the so-called loan was merely a camouflage but in reality consideration paid by newly inducted members to Mr.Naresh Chandra towards sale of land in question.
Has DDA been able to establish that trail of loan advanced by newly inducted members of the society ends in hands of Mr.Naresh Chandra and his family members? - HELD THAT:- The answer is no - No material whatsoever has been placed on record by DDA to show that the loan advanced by the newly inducted members of the society ended in the hands of Mr.Naresh Chandra and his family members. Particular emphasis was placed upon balance sheets of the society by learned senior counsel for DDA to show the end of the trail of money (loan) in the hands of Mr.Naresh Chandra and his family members. However, the balance sheets of society do not help the cause of DDA, for the balance sheets merely show various sum(s) were advanced by newly inducted members of the society viz. Mr.Sanjay Khurana and other NRIs to the society from time to time. But the trail of money gets cold here. There is no material to show that said sum(s) advanced by newly inducted members of society to the society reached the hands of Mr.Naresh Chandra and/or his family members.
Such being the factual position, the irresistible conclusion which emerges is that appellant DDA failed to justify its action of cancelling the allotment of land in question in favour of the society. The legal principles which we have succinctly culled out from the impugned judgment are correct. A society is distinct from its members. If a person gives money to a society by way of a donation or even a loan and is inducted as a member of the society does not mean that the members of the society who were managing the society when the society acquired an asset have sold that asset to the person who after giving donation is inducted as a member in the society - An allegation that this is a camouflage for sale of the asset of the society would require proof of money reaching the coffers of the members who walk out.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1263
Non-payment of liability of service tax u/s.43B - HELD THAT:- In a situation when deduction has not been claimed and a separate account has been maintained, then disallowance u/s 43B of the IT Act should not be made. In the case of CIT Vs Noble & Hewitt (India) (P) Ltd. [2007 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the case of Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. Vs CIT [1974 (6) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has been distinguished and it was held that when the amount of tax has not been debited to profit & loss account as an expenditure nor claimed any deduction in respect of the said amount then, the question of disallowance u/s 43B of the IT Act does not arise. Respectfully, following this decision, we hereby hold that there was no fallacy in the view taken by the learned CIT (A). The same is hereby confirmed and ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1262
Suppressed production - Assessment us 153A - high consumption of electricity in assessee’s case - HELD THAT:- AO has taken sufficient pains in referring the matter to the Chairman and Managing Director of Sponge Iron India Ltd., and also being examined by a Technical Officer of the said company, but there is a disclaimer by the company itself that those statements made by the Technical Officer is based on his personal experiences and cannot be used adversely. That it self takes away the basis of AO’s working. Not only that, AO himself accepts that assessee’s consumption of 1,260 KWH is on the basis of the production figures as shown in AY. 2001-02. He has taken that year as basis for arriving at the production in all the impugned assessment years including the later year of 2006-07 to 2008-09 (post search) on the same basis. He has not considered the objections raised by assessee at all. Moreover, as explained by assessee’s counsel and also considered the Ld. CIT(A), the various show cause notices issued by the Excise Department have been more or less settled in favour of assessee and no adverse view can be taken on the basis of the show cause notices. It has no bearing on the sales figures of assessee, as there is no case of Central Excise for any suppressed production. Even though, Ld. DR relied on the Central Excise case press note before us, it is a case by the Central Excise Department for suppressed production on a meticulous enquiry by the officer which was upheld by the Tribunal. In this case, in spite of conducting search and seizure operations, no incriminating material was found.
There is no scope for any addition being made in the present case. As rightly contended by the Ld. Counsel, Books of Accounts were not rejected. The addition made by the AO is purely on the basis of estimation of power consumption and supposedly suppressed production cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence on record. Keeping these aspects in mind, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the Revenue’s grounds.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1261
Bogus purchases of shares - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The assessee has received the money on sale of shares as the said sale of shares is at the Stock Exchange, which fact is not in dispute. The Tribunal has sent the matter back to the file of AO to ascertain the date of purchase, so as to decide as to whether the assessee has earned short term capital gain or long term capital gain.
In the present proceedings, out of the two scripts, for one scrip, the Tribunal has already sent the matter to the AO and, the Hon’ble High Court [2014 (7) TMI 643 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held finding of the Tribunal’s order dated 20/10/2010 in regular assessment proceeding would have direct relevance/ bearing on the Tribunal deciding the appeal arising from the assessment under section 143(3) and 153 A of the Act for the same assessment year and thus directed to recall the order of the Tribunal and directed to rehear the appeal.
The department has not challenged the order of the Tribunal [2010 (10) TMI 762 - ITAT, MUMBAI] before the High Court, the said order has become final,with regard to order under section 143(3) wherein the issue was restored to the AO. It may be noted that the assessee could not prove the purchases of penny stock shares of M/s Shalimar Agro Ltd. and M/s G.Tech Info Training Ltd., however, assessee submitted before us that the entire purchase and sale of shares are fully supported by necessary documents/evidences.
Therefore, we also restore the issue to the file of AO to avoid the conflicting assessment order in respect of same AY and direct the AO to verify and examine the actual date of purchase in both the cases and thereby to determine the short term capital gains or long term capital gains, or it may be added in income of the assessee u/s 68 on the basis of the alleged incriminating material found during the search as the case may be, and pass fresh assessment order after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the same in accordance with law. - Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1260
Claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - allotment of multiple residential units to an individual - allottee have horizontally joined the flats on the respective floors - newly inserted provisions of section 80IB(10) were violated - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case and the CBDT Circular clarifying the applicability of the amended provisions, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Clauses (e) and (f) to section 80IB(10) of the Act cannot be applied to the transactions carried out before 19-08-2009 and accordingly deduction u/s. 80IB(10) cannot be denied to the assessee only for the reason that multiple residential units were allotted to an individual prior to the aforesaid date. Accordingly, we find merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is allowed.
Prorata deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - contention of Revenue is that there is no concept of allowing proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) to a housing project - HELD THAT:- No merit in this plea of the Revenue. The Tribunal in numerous cases has allowed proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on eligible units of a housing projects and the same have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Courts. Thus, the question whether proportionate deduction can be allowed u/s. 80IB(10) to the eligible units of a housing project is no more res-integra
In M/S. ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD [2012 (12) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has granted proportionate deduction to the housing project u/s. 80IB(10). The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswas Promoters Private Limited Vs. ACIT [2012 (11) TMI 1117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief on the units satisfying the extent of built up area - assessee is eligible to claim deduction in respect of the residential units on which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has denied proportionate deduction - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1259
Cancelling registration u/s 12A - One of the principal grievances of the Appellant both before the ITAT and this Court is regarding violation of principles of natural justice and denial of sufficient opportunity to the Appellant in response to the show cause notice (‘SCN’) issued on 18th November 2011 - HELD THAT:- Revenue states that the Revenue would have no objection if the matter is remanded to the ITAT for fresh determination of all the pleas raised in the Assessee's appeal before the ITAT.
This Court sets aside the impugned order passed by the ITAT and restores it to the file of the ITAT for a fresh decision in accordance with law. It will be permissible for the Appellant as well as the Revenue to file their respective written notes of submissions in advance of the date of hearing of the appeal with reference to the grounds raised in the appeal and the documents already on record. In rendering a fresh decision in the appeal, the ITAT will be uninfluenced by its earlier which has been set aside by this order.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1258
Valuation (Central Excise) - process of manufacturing of PVC film - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the appeal - The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1257
Cancellation of a contract - tenability of the award by the arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Act of 1940 - damages for alleged unlawful cancellation of the contract - HELD THAT:- The CWE has also a power to decide if there was any delay attributable to the execution of the contract within the control of the Arbitrator, in which case, the amount claimed as increase in prices in materials would not be claimed. To the extent to which the redressal mechanism was also provided and the failure of the contractor to lead any evidence or make a statement that he had applied to CWE for such payment, the award by the Arbitrator was truly on a head of claim that must only be reckoned as 'improperly procured or otherwise invalid'.
There is no error in the intervention made by the court in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan Versus Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 997 - SUPREME COURT] where it qualified the award of interest at 18% by the arbitrator as constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The court guided for future awards that reference to interest for pendente lite or future interest should always be 9% in light of the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978.
The civil revision partially succeeds in restoring the award passed by the Arbitrator - the rejection of the claim to Clause No.2(L) by the two courts below stands confirmed - The reduction of interest rate at 9% per annum is also justified - revision allowed in part.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1256
Entitled to the benefit u/s 10-B - department submits that most of the activities are "outsourced" and very small part of the manufacture was undertaken by the assessee - HC restored the order passed by the first appellate authority pertaining to the benefit of exemption under Section 10B - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
The respondent is at liberty to file counter affidavit or additional documents, if any, within six weeks from today.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1255
Scheme of arrangement - no proceedings under Sections 235 to 251 of the Companies Act, 1956 are pending against the transferor and transferee companies - HELD THAT:- Considering the approval accorded by the equity shareholders and creditors of the petitioner companies to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation; the affidavit filed by the Official Liquidator not raising any objection to the amended Scheme of Amalgamation; and there being no surviving objection to the same by the Regional Director, Northern Region, there appears to be no impediment to the grant of sanction to the amended Scheme of Amalgamation. Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the amended Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Upon the sanction becoming effective from the appointed date of Amalgamation, i.e. 1st April, 2013, the transferor companies no. 1 to 15 shall stand dissolved without undergoing the process of winding up.
Petition allowed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1254
Valuation - Wages received to be treated as a facility charges - Includibility in the sale price - Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 - HELD THAT:- The first part of Section 2(h) of the 1941 Act defined “sale price”, with which we are presently concerned, as well as the first part of Section 2(d) of the 1954 Act as also the first part of Section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Act, 1954 are similar.
Reliance placed in the case of HINDUSTAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & JK. SYNTHETICS LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOTA [1978 (8) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that The amount of freight forms part of the "sale price" within the meaning of the first part of the definition and it is not necessary for the State to invoke the inclusive clause and in fact the State has not done so. The exclusion clause is, therefore, irrelevant and cannot be called in aid by the assessee.
Appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
