|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 2075 Records
-
2019 (3) TMI 1920
Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - Claim under the head ‘objects of general public utility’ OR under the head ‘preservation of environment’ - as upto assessment year 2008-09, had been claiming exemption u/s 11 under the head ‘objects of general public utility’ whereas from assessment year 2009-10 the assessee had claimed the exemption under the head ‘preservation of environment’ - HELD THAT:- We find that vide order [2018 (12) TMI 915 - ITAT LUCKNOW] the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2002-03 to 2008-09 on similar grounds though in those years the assessee had claimed exemption under the head ‘objects of general public utility’. However, during the year under consideration the assessee had claimed exemption under the specific head ‘preservation of environment’ (including watersheds, forest and wildlife) as this specific head has been included in the definition of section 2(15) w.e.f. 01/04/2009. The activities of the assessee remained same and the activities being carried out by the assessee has already been held charitable in nature. Learned CIT(A), while allowing relief to the assessee, has held that if the assessee falls into a specific category then specific category will have precedent over the general category. The matter regarding registration has attained finality when Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
The reasoning of the Assessing Officer that activity of the assessee do not qualify under head ‘preservation of environment’ (including watersheds, forest and wildlife) has also been decided by the Tribunal for assessment year 02-03 to 08-09 in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of expenses towards forest development expenses which the appellant claimed as utilization of funds in relation to the discharge of statutory functions - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly relied on the CAG report wherein the auditor had not pointed out anything adverse with regard to the expenses and therefore, has rightly held that the expenses were shown in line with the objects and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the same. In view of the above, ground of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Disallowance of expenses debited under the head material loss - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has held that such losses are inherent to the activities such as forest fires or theft of logs in the forest by mischievous/criminal elements. The learned CIT(A) has further held that loss of material has been approved by the higher authorities of the corporation which is based on the report of the Log Manager and we agree with this finding that the amount debited by the assessee towards material loss has been audited by CAG and the accounts have been approved by the State Legislature. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue - Ground of the Revenue’s appeal is also dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1919
TP Adjustment - international transactions undertaken with the associated enterprise - rejection of segmentation - internal comparison of profitability from the international transactions with unrelated - HELD THAT:- As following the decisions of Birla Soft . [2015 (4) TMI 1239 - DELHI HIGH COURT], we set aside the order of the AO /TPO and remit this issue back to the file of the AO / TPO for determining the arm’s length price in respect of the international transactions undertaken with the associated enterprise be determined by making internal comparison of profitability from the international transactions with unrelated parties after allocating respective revenues and expenses to both the segments. The assessee shall place all relevant materials before the AO/TPO and comply to the requirements of AO/TPO in accordance with law. The AO/TPO shall after affording effective opportunity to the assessee shall decide this issue in accordance with law.
ALP adjustment on the entire turnover (including revenue from third party customers) of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As following the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Yongsan Automative India Pvt. Ltd [2017 (12) TMI 855 - ITAT CHENNAI] we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment has to be made only in respect of the transaction of the assessee being a tested party, with associated enterprise outside the country after comparing the transaction made by similarly placed company in uncontrolled transaction with non-Associated Enterprise. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Accordingly the order of the DRP is set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the AO/TPO.
Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1918
Tripartite agreements inter alia with banks and consumers - HELD THAT:- Notice of the petition and the accompanying application be issued to the respondents on taking of steps by the petitioner through all permissible modes, process returnable for 2nd April, 2019 till which date, no coercive action be taken in terms of the order dated 11.03.2019 against the petitioner herein.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1917
Disallowance u/s. 80IA - whether the amalgamating company i.e. Shanti Processing Ltd. was eligible for claiming u/s. 80IA? - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) in his findings that as per the provisions of section 80IA(12) when any undertaking of an Indian Company which is entitled to deduction under this section is transferred before the expiry of the period specified in this section to another Indian Company then as per clause (b) the provision of this section shall apply to the amalgamated Company as they would have applied to the amalgamating Company if the amalgamation had not taken place and the provisions of subsection (12) would only apply if the amalgamating Company was eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA.
As demonstrated from the above facts and circumstances that the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on presumption basis that addition was old plant and machinery without bringing on record evidence to substantiate that specified machinery was purchased by Shanti processor Ltd and the assessing officer has also failed to disproved the material fact that similar claim was allowed to the assessee in the assessment year 2009-10 on fulfilling of all the conditions.
Disallowance u/s.14A - assessee had submitted that it had not used borrowed fund for making investment and accordingly no part of interest was required to be disallowed by invoking the provision of section 14A - HELD THAT:- After consideration of above facts and detailed findings in the order of the CIT(A), we are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly held that assessee was having ample interest free fund, therefore, no disallowance in respect of interest expenditure is to be made in the case of assessee by invoking the provision of section 14A of the act.
CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance out of administrative expenditure to the extent of ₹ 2 lacs after taking into consideration the claim of the assessee that no administrative expenditure has been incurred in earing the exempt income. On this issue during the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Pr. CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 1448 - SC ORDER] - we observe that ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the disallowance of administrative expenditure to the amount of ₹ 2 lacs after taking into consideration the nature of investment made by the assessee and the nature of expenses incurred. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue, therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1916
Selection and minimum tenure of DGP - minimum residual tenure required - HELD THAT:- What was emphasized in Prakash Singh [2006 (9) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] is a minimum tenure of two years for an incumbent once he is appointed as the Director General of Police. The direction issued by this Court neither contemplated the appointment of a Director General of Police on the eve of his retirement nor the practice now adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in making the empanelment, i.e. empanelling officers who have at least two years of tenure.
Neither this Court had contemplated recommendation for appointment of officers who are on the verge of retirement or appointment of officers who have a minimum residual tenure of two years. The emphasis was to select the best and to ensure a minimum tenure of two years' service of such officer who is to be selected and appointed. The Police Acts enacted also do not contemplate any fixed residual tenure for an officer to be recommended for appointment as the Director General of Police of a State - Recommendations for appointment of the Director General of Police on the eve of retirement of the incumbent or of the Union Public Service Commission in embarking upon a course of action which may have the effect of overlooking efficient and eligible officers will stand obviated by the above direction which we had deemed to be fit and proper to issue.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1915
Long term capital gain - AO has adopted stamp duty value of the property as on the date of sale deed - adopting the fair market value as per section 50C as on the date of registration of sale deed on 10.05.2012 as against the assessee executed sale agreement on 02.10.2009 - whether the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement to sale or sale deed to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain.? - HELD THAT:- The purpose of introducing section 50C of the Act was to counter suppression of sale consideration of sale of immovable properties. Before insertion of section 50C of the Act to the statute, there are lot of litigations as to consideration shown in document conveying title and payment of stamp duty. To overcome the litigations, the provision of section 50C of the Act has been inserted to the statute w. e. f. 01.06.2003 wherein it is made mandatory to adopt value u/s 50C of the Act for the purpose of determination of consideration.
A proviso to section 50C of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act. 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to resolve the genuine and intended hardship, in the case in which the date of agreement to sale is prior to the date of sale and market value of the property as on the date of agreement to sale and date of sale deed is different.
Assessee is bound by the value of sales consideration of ₹ 4,92,00,000/- in terms of the agreement dated 02.10.2009 and if provisions of section 50C of the Act are invoked, then the valuation as may be arrived at by the stamp duty authorities as on 02.10.2009 will be required to be considered for the comparison of the adequateness. Hence, we delete the addition made by AO and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1914
Seeking grant of Bail - Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed on the invoices without receipt of goods and passing on the said credit through raising of invoices/E-way bills without supply of goods - bogus companies - offence u/s 133(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is true that the petitioner has attended the enquiry conducted by the respondent and has also given his statements. It is also true that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 34 days. However, a reading of the entire counter affidavit and the case diary, reveals the fact that this petitioner is involved in a huge scam of creating fake Companies, creating fake invoices and taking advantage of input tax credit based on fake invoices. The respondent till now were able to deduct a total sum of ₹ 98 crores of fraudulent input tax credit which has been passed on/received by 15 bogus Companies.
In a case involving moral turpitude of this magnitude, Courts must be very slow and careful before letting out a person on bail. The reason being that such persons are capable of tampering with the evidence and hamper the further course of investigation. Law is now well settled and apart from the other considerations, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support there of, the character of the accused and the larger interest of the public/country. If these things are taken into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where bail can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1913
Maintainability of appeal - time limit for filing appeal - appeal filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 35 (1) of Central Excise Act - day on which the appellant had deposited the amount, has to be taken as the date of complete filing of appeal or not - HELD THAT:- On going through the amended provisions of Section 35F, it is noted that though the heading of the said Section is to the effect that “deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalties imposed before filing of appeal”, the Section itself is to the effect that- “the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal- “unless the appellant has deposited the particular percentage of the demand, as the case may be”. As such it is seen that in terms of previous Section 35F, the mandate is for not entertaining the appeal unless the deposits are made. This only leads to logical conclusion that the pre-deposit in terms of amended provisions of Section 35F is a requirement for disposal of appeal and not a requirement of filing of the appeal.
The matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), for decision on merit, inasmuch as, the appellant has admittedly pre-deposited the amount in terms of Section 35F of the Act and the original appeal was also filed well within time - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1912
Exemption u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C)(iiid) - assessee was not registered u/s 12A - gross receipt of the assessee was less than Rupees One Crore - HELD THAT:- Assessee by mistake had claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act to which it was not entitled as it was not registered u/s 12AA of the Act but the assessee was eligible to avail exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiid) of the Act as the gross receipts of the assessee is less than Rupees One Crore.
The basic exemption limit has also not been considered in the case of the assessee and tax has been calculated on the gross receipts which is not justified. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer who should look into the issue and should pass appropriate order after considering the eligibility of the assessee u/s 10(23C(iiid) of the Act - Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1911
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- When the facts of this case are analysed, the financial debt claimed does not fit into any of the clauses mentioned under section 5(8) of the Code - It is unclear why the Petitioner was keeping quiet for three years without asking for the principal or interest when ₹ 40 lacs is advanced to the Corporate Debtor as a financial debt except the only Demand Notice dated 25.09.2018. No document was produced in support of the loan showing this amount as a financial debt except saying that there is an oral agreement.
Since the Petitioner has failed to prove the basic requirement that the amount advanced is a financial debt as provided under the Code, the other contentions raised by the parties are not gone into detail.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1910
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - delivery of notice to Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The notice has been issued to the CD for its appearance. The FC has attempted to serve the notice by post, by way of hand delivery and lastly by way of email. The affidavit filed on the side of the FC proves that the attempt of the FC to serve notice by hand has not been successful because of the refusal on the side of CD in accepting the notice served by hand. However, the service of notice issued by post has been delivered to the CD. So also, service of notice through email was also successfully done in the case in hand.
The CD, therefore, was called absent and declared ex parte, being satisfied that there was delivery of notice to the CD and the CD did not turn up for defending the case after remitting back the case from the Appellate Tribunal to this Bench and that the Hon’ble NCLAT remitted with a direction to admit it.
Also, the FC has compiled with all the requirements to be meted out as per Section 7 (3) of the Code of 2016 and name of the Resolution Professional (in short, RP) has been proposed. Form 2 produced along with the application proves that there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the RP. Annexure-2 at page 67 of the application ¡s the Form 2. Mr Chhedi Rajbhar is the insolvency professional proposed by the applicant in the application.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1909
Liquidated damages paid towards incomplete contracts - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, on identical facts on the same issue, the Special Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. During the appeal hearing, the AR argued that the liability regarding the liquidity damages arose by virtue of terms of contract between the assessee and the customer and the delay in supply would attract the damages and the liability is ascertainable each year and the assessee is required to make payment of damages to the contractee.
Such liability is debited to the Profit & Loss account under the head ‘liquidity damages’. Since, the issue is settled in favour of the assessee by Special Bench and also by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the assessee’s own case, the assessee has requested to allow the same as deduction. On identical issue, for the A.Y.2010-11 . [2016 (9) TMI 1603 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] this Tribunal has deleted the addition and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal, Special Bench and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue on this ground.
Rental income and excess depreciation - CIT(A) given finding that the difference amount was offered as income from business in the Engineering Unit - HELD THAT:- From the above order of the Ld.CIT(A) and from the explanation of the assessee, it is found that the assessee had already admitted the rental income under the head ‘business’ in Engineering Unit and there was no difference. The department has not brought any material to controvert the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue on this ground for the A.Y.2011-12 is dismissed.
Depreciation @50% on cars stated to be for commercial use - HELD THAT:- For the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee had claimed the depreciation @50% and the AO allowed the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. In the instant assessment year, the AO restricted the depreciation holding that the cars are not put to commercial use. No evidence has been brought on record by the AO to establish that the cars were not being put to commercial use. During the appeal hearing also, no material was placed before the Tribunal to controvert the finding of the CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1908
Condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- Permission is granted to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal within 30 days from today. If the petitioner approaches the appellate authority by filing an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority shall take into consideration all the contentions raised by the petitioner.
It is made clear that the appellate authority, while considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, shall take into consideration the period lapsed by the petitioner in this Court by filing this writ petition i.e. from 14.01.2005 till date. Interim order dated 15.3.2005 passed by this Court shall continue for a period of one month hence. It will open for the petitioner to rely upon the subsequent decision of learned Tribunal.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1907
Stay petition - present applications under Rule 35A of ITAT Rules, 1963, has sought to extend the operation of stay order which demand for AY 2011-12 raised by the Revenue was stayed as per the directions mentioned therein, on the ground that the delay in disposal of the appeal filed by the assessee is not attributable to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the averments made in the application under consideration, which got duly corroborated from the orders of hearing recorded by the Hon’ble Bench having not been controverted by the Ld. DR, the delay in disposal of appeal is not attributed to the appellant, in any manner whatsoever and, as such, we are of the opinion that the application under consideration is liable to be succeeded.
Consequently, the stay order dated 02.03.2016, (supra), thereafter extended vide orders dated 09.09.2016, 03.03.2017, 08.09.2017, 09.03.2018 & 14.09.2018, are ordered to be further extended for six months or till the appeal is disposed of whichever is earlier subject to the rider that assessee shall not delay the disposal of appeal in any manner otherwise stay granted shall be vacated.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1906
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - allegation of sexual assault on a minor girl - petitioner claims that the allegation was made, after he sent notice demanding his professional charges for treatment of victim - HELD THAT:- Mere delay in reporting the matter to the authorities concerned, especially sexual assault on a minor girl, is immaterial and it would not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, in the instant case, it is not the delay alone that is significant. The significant fact is that the complaint was given to the authorities concerned only two weeks after the mother received the lawyer notice from the petitioner claiming a huge amount as professional fees. This raises suspicion on the prosecution case against the petitioner. When the victim had disclosed the matter to her mother in July, 2018, one would have expected the mother to report the matter to the authorities concerned much earlier than 22.09.2018. The fact that she reported the matter only after receiving a lawyer notice from the petitioner assumes significance.
The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act does not mean that the prosecution version has to be accepted as gospel truth in every case. The presumption does not mean that the court cannot take into consideration the special features of a particular case. Patent absurdities or inherent infirmities or improbabilities in the prosecution version may lead to an irresistible inference of falsehood in the prosecution case. The presumption would come into play only when the prosecution is able to bring on record facts that would form the foundation for the presumption - No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. It should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case in consonance with the legislative intention.
In the instant case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he actually touched any private part of the victim girl. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation of the case. The prosecution has no case that on getting bail, the petitioner would flee from justice. He has got no criminal antecedents - The apprehension expressed by the prosecution is only that the petitioner would threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, if released on bail. Such a contingency can be avoided by imposing appropriate conditions on granting bail.
The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No. 592 of 2018 of Nedupuzha Police Station - Application allowed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1905
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - rejection on the ground that the applicant is not Body Corporate - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Respondent is a society registered under Act XXI of 1860. The provisions of the AP Societies Registration Act, 2001 shall be Applicable to the Societies that are registered thereunder.
The Respondent is not a body Corporate and hence, the Present Petition is not maintainable under IB Code.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1904
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT:- In view of the failure on the part of the Corporate Debtor, to liquidate the outstanding liability, the Applicant/Operational Creditor issued a notice dated 28.12.2017 under section 8 of the Code. This was not replied to. Thereafter, the Operational Creditor has followed it ea by filing the present petition. The petition has been filed in the required format, along with the supporting affidavit that no notice of dispute has been raised. Compliance of the provision of Section 9(3)(c) is also on record - The Corporate Debtor has accepted that a default in payment has occurred. The prayer made by the Operational Creditor therefore merits consideration.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1903
MAT computation u/s 115JB - Whether tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that in view of the reduction of the amounts against diminution in value of investments and non-performing loans and advances and other contingencies from the respective heads in the asset side of the Balance Sheet of the Petitioner and non-showing of them as provision in the audited accounts, such items and amounts should be treated as write off and not provision and hence not covered by Clause (i) of Explanation I of Section 115JB(2)? - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that although the decision of the Gujarat High Court in VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LTD. [2017 (8) TMI 451 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] came a few days after the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal while rehearing the appeal should assume as if the said judgment was pronounced earlier rehear the appeal on remand on the issue only considering the said decision and all other relevant judgments on this subject and proceed to determine the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1902
Typographical error at para No. 6 - correction is minor correction and therefore does not prejudice either of the parties and does not change the decision of the bench.
The registry is directed to serve upon both the parties above corrigendum which will substitute relevant paragraphs in the order passed by the coordinate bench. The Parties are directed to bring the same to the notices of various concerned authorities and Hon’ble courts, wherever this order is referred.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1901
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - winding up petition against the corporate debtor, pending for disposal before High Court - consideration of application filed by SBI - State Bank of India did not disclose pendency of winding up petition against the corporate debtor - suppression of material fact and playing fraud on this authority or not.
Whether in view of the fact that the Hon’ble High Court having admitting the winding up petition against the corporate debtor and it is pending for disposal, this authority can consider this application filed by State Bank of India under section 7 of IBC? - HELD THAT:- Though the winding up petition against the corporate debtor is admitted by the Hon’ble High Court, this authority can proceed with heaing of this application filed by State Bank of India (in short, SBI) against the corporate debtor under section 7 of 1&B Code. I also noted that SBI’s stand before the Hon’ble High Court against the corporate debtor and before this authority is not inconsistent at all. In the High Court, SBI opposed winding up proposal and here in this case, SBI requested this authority to have a resolution of insolvency of the corporate debtor as a first instance and if not the consequences of liquidation may follow - Hon’ble High Court admitted winding up petition against the corporate debtor, this authority can proceed with hearing of this application and admit the corporate debtor in CIRP.
Whether this authority having held in daily proceeding order dated 02.08.2017 in CP No.95/KB/2017 that it is not proper on the part of this authority to pass any order against the corporate debtor in CIRP under IBC as it may amount to interference of jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court. Whether this authority can still consider this application filed by SBI under section 7 of IBC? - HELD THAT:- It is to be made clear that the order dated 02.08.2017 was passed in daily proceeding under rule 92 of NCLT rules, 2016. By that order, this authority simply adjourned that matter to next date. It is not a final order passed in the proceeding. Moreover, that order was passed way back on 22.08.2017 when law relating to status of the proceeding under I&B Code vis-a-vis proceeding under winding up petition pending against same company was not clearly set out and explained - proceeding under |&B Code being distinct and independent proceeding than the proceeding of winding up company, this Adjudicating Authority can proceed with the hearing of the application under section 7, 9 or 10 of 1&B Code filed by the creditor or Corporate Person as the case may be. This authority has to take judicial notice of above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as they are having binding precedent on this authority as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India. When this authority passed order dated 02.08.2017, this position of law was not clear.
This authority can proceed with the hearing of this application. It cannot be said that this authority is sitting in appeal against its own order because order cited by the corporate debtor cannot be said to be final order passed by this authority.
State Bank of India did not disclose pendency of winding up petition against the corporate debtor and the order of this authority dated 02.08.2017 in CP No.95/KB/2017. Whether it is amounting to suppression of material fact and playing fraud on this authority? - HELD THAT:- This authority did not pass any order in favour of the SBI. It is not a case wherein the SBI got some advantageous order being passed by this Adjudicating Authority because it did not disclose pendency of winding up petition against the corporate debtor. No doubt, SBI ought to have disclosed the same in all its fairness but only because SBI did not disclose those facts, is not enought to reject this application. SBI did not seek any order prejudicial to the interest of the corporate debtor. In fact, it is the say of SBI in this proceeding that as the corporate debtor is unable to pay huge debt, its insolvency resolution process may be started - non-disclosure of pendency of winding up petition against the corporate debtor is not a relevant and material fact to decide this application - answered in negative.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
............
|
9911796707
