|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1861 Records
-
2018 (6) TMI 1703
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor has filed rejoinder dated 8th November, 2017 to the statement of objections filed by the corporate debtor and vehemently refuted the false allegations made against the Applicant and also produced e-mails wherein the Corporate Debtor admitted its liability to pay the outstanding amount and sought for extension of time for the payment of the same. The Operational Creditor further stated that despite reasonable time granted by the Applicant, the corporate Debtor failed to clear the dues.
Petition is admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1702
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The financial creditor has filed the rejoinder wherein all the pleas/objections taken by the corporate debtor/guarantor have been controverted and has submitted that since the debt is due and payable, and the same is not interdicted by some law, the same is payable and it is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is due - the record/evidence that has been mentioned is sufficient to ascertain the existence of default on the part of the corporate debtor/guarantor.
On the issue that there is no sanction/approval of RBI due to which the "corporate guarantee" in question is not enforceable is stated to be wholly vague and baseless because as per article 3 of the loan agreement, the corporate debtor/guarantor assured the financial creditor of its ability to provide such guarantee in accordance with the applicable law and regulations. Therefore, the corporate debtor/guarantor cannot hide itself behind its own failure to obtain any required approval to wriggle out of its liability or consequences of default - further, the failure on the part of the corporate debtor/guarantor to obtain such approval, does not impinge upon the validity of the guarantee issued.
The application of the financial creditor is complete in all respect - application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1701
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Counsel for the corporate debtor has been fair enough to admit that the corporate debtor has not taken any step after completion of the term of the JDA either to make payment or to make any communication till the receiving of the notice under section 8(1) of the I and B Code, 2016, which has been sent to the corporate debtor on March 8, 2018. It appears that the corporate debtor has come up with a frivolous defence after receiving notice under section 8(1) of the I and B Code, 2016 and has not made any payment/communication to the operational creditor as was envisaged as per the terms and conditions of the JDA - it is safely concluded that the corporate debtor has defaulted in making payments to the operational creditor.
The operational creditor has complied with section 9(3)(b) and (c) of the I and B Code, 2016, by filing affidavit, where it has been deposed that the stand taken by the corporate debtor in its reply dated March 21, 2018 is a mere afterthought and as such, none of the claims so made in the reply were ever made prior to the same - The operational creditor has fulfilled all the requirements of law for admission of the application. This authority is satisfied that the corporate debtor has committed default in making payment of the outstanding debt claimed by the operational creditor.
Application is admitted and the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process is ordered which ordinarily shall get completed within 180 days, reckoning from the day this order is passed - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1700
Undisclosed income - Unexplained deposits in bank account - as per the ITS information, AO came to know that the assessee has deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank for acquiring bonds/debenture - CIT(A) was of the view that the assessment has to be made on substantive basis in the case of the assessee as the assessee is having his own business and has been filing regular return of income and convinced that the addition of ₹ 1 lakhs - HELD THAT:- Bench asked the ld. DR to furnish the details of substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Ajay Taneja or any other person. The ld. DR could not furnish such details. On the other hand, he pointed out that no substantive additions have been made in the hands of any other member of the Taneja Group.
In our considered opinion, if no substantive additions have been made in any other hands, there is no room for addition to be made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. In our considered view, there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the finding of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1699
Maintainability of application - adjournments were being sought without justifiable reason for last four occasions - HELD THAT:- When this matter was called out on the finally adjourned date of 5th June 2018, there was neither a request for adjournment nor the presence of a representative of the applicant - matter is proceeded to be disposed off.
Except for a mention, in passing, of the lack of financial wherewithal to comply with the terms of deposit ordered by the Tribunal, no ground, or documentation to support such ground, is on record. It is observed that the application is composed almost entirely of generalities of allegations that are not supported with evidence and of vague philosophy that rambles about the adequacy of grounds for subjecting an order of pre-deposit of the Tribunal to fresh scrutiny.
In the circumstances, and in the face of continued lack of representation despite adequate opportunity being offered to the applicant, there are no other option but to dismiss this application - application dismissed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1698
Provisional release of imported consignments - non-compliance with the order of the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The matter is adjourned for 15 days from today so as to enable the Revenue to file appeal against the orders of this Tribunal. By that time it is expected that Respondent will file the appeal against the Orders dated 15/05/2016 & 14/06/2018 and obtained a stay from its operation. Further, the Commissioner is also directed to follow the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Customs Act in letter and spirit so as not to impose any conditionality which is unwarranted under the Custom Act.
As per the CESTAT procedures and rules, any submission against the Order passed by it is to be laid before the Bench by filing Affidavit/Miscellaneous Application through Registry for its consideration. It is absolutely not permitted by any parties to appeal to directly address any letter to the Member of the Bench. Perhaps, the Respondent is not aware of these rules and provisions and hence he entered into a direct communication with the Member which is impermissible.
The copy of this order is being marked to Chief Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata for his information.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1697
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The fact that the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay tentative amount of ₹ 1 crore, but finally settled for ₹ 75 Lakhs plus GST show that there some discussion was going on with regard to amount actually payable to the 1st Respondent, therefore, it can be accepted that there was an existence of dispute about the payment of debt.
Application not maintainable and is dismissed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1696
Principles of natural justice - case of petitioner is that the respondent failed to afford personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the final assessment orders - HELD THAT:- It is mandatory to afford personal hearing before passing final assessment orders pursuant to the pre-revision notices. The authority ought to have issued an independent notice of hearing fixing a specific date for appearance irrespective of the fact as to whether she receives objections or not.
The respondent failed to afford personal hearing and mechanically passed orders - Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent are violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the same are liable to be set aside.
The matters are remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1695
Addition u/s 37 r.w 40(a)(ia) - service charges paid to M/s Golden Trust Financial Services (GTFS) hereafter for having acted as its agent - CIT(A) examining assessee’s exclusive method of accounting in service tax receivable on output services as against inclusive method of service tax payments in respect of inputs services thereby holding the impugned expenditure to be eligible for deduction - assessee is a company engaged in corporate insurance business - HELD THAT:- We posed a specific query as to whether the said operating expenditure included any commission agency services or infrastructure usages or not. There is no such material on record to this effect. It emerges therefore that the assessee has been following its consistent practice wherein agency and infrastructural service are being availed from the payee GTFS as accepted by the AO himself in preceding succeeding assessment years as discussed in above extracted CIT(A)’s findings.
Taxpayers before us as has already filed all the relevant particulars of the agency and infrastructure utilized on secured as already discussed at length in the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. Coupled with this is the clinching lower appellate authority’s conclusion that these two entities are not group concerns at all. The assessee’s directors’ names along with their respective stake holdings as well as payee firm’s partners’ details reproduced hereinabove do not show any group(s) relationship before these. The Revenue’s very fair in not involving section 40A(2)(b) of the Act even to prove the contrary. It is therefore a case of the assessee having availed both agency as well as infrastructure network of the payees GTFS carrying out in its corporate insurance agent business.
Assessing Officer had invoked only section 37 in doubting genuineness of the impugned payments. Mr. Usman at this stage submits that CIT(A) ought to have applied section 40(a)(ia) disallowance as well since the assessee had not deducted TDS at the prescribed rate as per tabulation chart extracted forming part of CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. We fail to agree with the Revenue’s instant technical plea. The fact remains that the assessee has filed its payee’s computation of income, income tax return as well as the corresponding assessment order sufficiently indicating that the impugned payment had been duly assessed as his case in its hands.
Section 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted in the Act by way of the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 prescribe non application of the impugned provision in case the assessee’s concerned is not an assessee in default as per section 201(1) 1st proviso. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in TIRUPATI CONSTURCTION [2016 (8) TMI 1310 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has concluded that the said proviso is a curative one having retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. We therefore decline the Revenue’s arguments seeking to invoke u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We further hold that hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s land mark decision in CIT(A) vs. M/s S.K. Tekriwal [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has further concluded that the section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in case of short deduction of TDS than the prescribed rate.
CIT DR next reiterates Revenue’s two remaining averments that the assessee has followed exclusive method of its inbound receivables as against inclusive method for impugned expenditure whilst claiming service tax component (supra). Learned counsel representing assessee clarifies that this assessee is not registered under the service tax regime. What it has done it is to claim the impugned expenditure after making the actual payment which is duly allowable under the Act. It has further not claimed any benefit arising out of its exclusive method as well. We therefore reject Revenue’s instant argument.
CIT-DR’s lastly contends that the argument that CIT(A) has erred in both law as well as on facts in adopting judicial consistency on the issue of the impugned payments of ₹66.18 crores despite the facts involved in the relevant previous year are altogether different than in preceding and succeeding assessment years. There is no material on record pin-pointing any such distinction on facts summarized in the lower authorities’ findings extracted in preceding foregoing discussion. We therefore do not find any substance in Revenue’s instant last argument as well. - Decided against revenue
-
2018 (6) TMI 1694
Levy of GST - reimbursement of expenses and salary paid by M/s Habufa Meubelen B.V.(HO) to the liaison office established in India - Registration of Liaison Office required or not - HELD THAT:- The reimbursement of expenses and salary paid by M/s Habufa Meubelen B.V to the liaison office, is not liable to GST, as no consideration for any services is being charged by the liaison office - Further, the kind of reimbursement claimed by them from their HO is also falling out of the purview of supply of service and as there are no such taxable supplies made by the Liaison office, they are not required to get themselves registered under GST.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1693
Classification of imported goods - payable duties - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is not interested in exercising the option for provisional relief thereto. Instead, the petitioner requests that the permission for reexport may be granted. The petitioner has already applied for such purpose. The concerned authority i.e. the respondent no.2 has not yet taken any formal decision nor communicated the same to the petitioner. We are informed that the goods are of perishable nature.
The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the petitioner's request for reexport of the goods and convey the same to the petitioner latest by 05.07.2018.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1692
Assessment u/s 153A - addition as the profit earned by the assessee based on the documents found during the course of search - HELD THAT:- In this case the documents were found from the assessee, wherein, the name of the assessee is also mentioned in short form, assessee failed to explain the contents of the documents including the paper showing the transaction as well as the contents of the MOU.
In view of this, we reject the contention of the ld AR, uphold the orders of the lower authorities confirming the addition as undisclosed income of the assessee, and dismiss ground of the appeal of the assessee.
Unaccounted Profit on Sale of Industrial plots at Village Jharsentli, Faridabad - first contention of the assessee is that above transaction has not happened and these are tentative or estimates - HELD THAT:- Argument of the assessee is that out of the 16 plots, four plots have not been sold and therefore they cannot be considered as the final sale price. This argument does not merit any consideration for the reason that AO has divided the profit based on the date of sale of the plots when they are registered. AO himself has stated that up to 31st October 2001 only 12 plots was sold and balance 4 plots were sold later on. Further the assessee has also borrowed jointly sum from somebody on interest and interest cost thereon as been reduced from the profit. With respect to the sale of 12 plots, the assessee has complete details about the name who bought the plot of land, the documented sale price etc. These facts are not disputed. Therefore based on all these facts, it cannot be said that the papers are merely an estimate or projection.
Assessee is merely a broker and whatever profit arises would squarely falls on the shoulders of the owner of the property and not on the broker - On the similar facts and circumstances in the case of the assessee for different years, we have already dealt with this argument. For the similar reasons we also reject this contention of the assessee. Furthermore we are of the opinion that documents shows emphatically and clearly that in the whole project the assessee was also partner along with the managing director of the company sold plot. These facts were not denied by the assessee further assessee did not produce on its own the managing director of the seller company before AO to show that the profit belongs to him. It was also not denied that the plot originally to be sold was subdivided into 16 plots and therefore there is bound to be expenditure for roads, electricity etc, no evidences were furnished that who incurred this expenditure. Contrary to this, the document shows that the assessee has maintained a detailed account where cash has been received and expenditure have been defrayed. It cannot be said that that assessee was merely a broker and has not earned profit on sale of the 16 plots.
Determination of profit - Assessing officer reduced the amount of lesser sale consideration received by cheque and added the same as a cash has been received of that amount by the assessee. We are not in agreement with the Ld. assessing officer on this issue. If there is a reduction in the sale price with respect to the 4 plots from the amount mentioned in the seized document, then the Ld. AO should have granted deduction of the same amount in the consideration paid by them by cheque however same should not have been added the cash receipt. In fact, he granted a sum of ₹ 1985000/- as deduction from the gross profit. To this extent the Ld. assessing officer is directed to reduce the overall profit of ₹ 2, 18, 46, 799/– and proportionate profit of the assessee.
Deduction of certain expenditure out of the profit of the profit - documents found during the course of search are required to be believed completely. When some additions are made based on those papers, there is no reason that information contained in those papers should not be believed. The amount of compensation is precisely mentioned in the seized papers. Therefore, such figure cannot be an estimate or projections. If the above amount of compensation is not included in to the total expenditure computed by the ld AO for working out the overall profit then, such sum must be granted to the assessee as deduction and then overall profit needs to be worked out - AO is directed to verify the computation of profit, if the amount of compensation is not included in the expenditure, then the profit amount deserves to be adjusted accordingly. Further, the amount of charges paid for EDC, the assessee has not given any evidence of payment of such charges - assessee does not have any evidence that assessee has incurred these expenditure. Therefore, there is no information available that assessee incurred this expenditure. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. assessing officer in not granting deduction of this amount from the gross profit shown by the assessee.
We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority in taxing the 50 % of the profit based on information contained in the loose papers found during the course of search. However, with respect to the determination of overall profit we direct the ld AO to reduce the sales consideration by ₹ 1985000/- because of difference in sale price and further adjustment because of compensation paid of ₹ 5.50 lakhs. Accordingly ground no three of the appeal is partly allowed with above direction.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1691
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Fair Market Value (FMV) and its computation - Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- No separate Ground was raised about the 14A disallowance under a separate head. It is found that Ground No.1 (c) remained unadjudicated as pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, we are recalling our order in that regard. As far as Grounds No.1(a) and 1(b) are considered we would like to observe that case laws relied upon by the assessee were not considered while passing the order [2016 (4) TMI 709 - ITAT MUMBAI]
We recall our order in that regard also. The registry is directed to fix the case before regular Bench so that appeal filed by the assessee can be heard afresh.
As a result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1690
Classification of imported goods - steam cleaner exclusively used in Prosthetic Dentistry (in the process of preparing artificial teeth i.e., Dentures) - whether classified under Tariff Heading 9018 49 00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under CTH 8419 20 90? - benefit of Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Since there is a specific heading covering the item, the appellant’s contention that as per the General Interpretation Rules, when the item is classifiable under two headings, the heading which occurs last in the tariff needs to be applied. Therefore, the steam cleaner manufactured by the appellants falls correctly under Heading 8419 20 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- We appreciate the appellant’s point of view that as they have been regularly filing returns as the department is aware of his activities, extended period cannot be invoked - the invocation of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1689
Jurisdiction - Provisional release of imported goods - whether the appeal against the Order is being filed by the respondent in Kolkata, High Court, when the matter relates to the valuation of goods among the other issues under the Customs Act? - HELD THAT:- After going through the various orders and request made by the respondent Commissioner, we adjourn the matter for 15 days from today so as to enable the Revenue to file appeal against the orders of this Tribunal. By that time it is expected that respondent will file the appeal against the Orders dated 15-5-2016 & 14-6-2018 and obtained a stay from its operation. Further, the Commissioner is also directed to follow the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Customs Act in letter and spirit so as not to impose any conditionality which is unwarranted under the Customs Act.
As per the CESTAT procedures and rules, any submission against the Order passed by it is to be laid before the Bench by filing Affidavit/Miscellaneous Application through Registry for its consideration. It is absolutely not permitted by any parties to appeal to directly address any letter to the Member of the Bench.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1688
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - negative working capital adjustment - HELD THAT:- Basis of the working capital adjustment is the existence of a difference in the cost of working capital and it is also stated that this is relevant because the cost is stated to affect the margin and in the assessee’s case, the assessee has demonstrated that it holds its working capital at no cost, completely out of its own funds without any borrowings at all. In our considered opinion, these factors are not relevant for working capital adjustment because in TP analysis, operating profit is considered which is profit before interest and therefore, the interest cost has no relevance for TP analysis and the working capital adjustment is for this reason that working capital position affects the pricing of any services or goods in the open market and not because the working capital cost increases or decreases the profit margin. Hence we find no merit in this claim of the assessee and accordingly this issue is decided against the assessee.
A categorical finding has been given by TPO that the assessee has not established the difference in risk level of the tested party and uncontrolled comparables and this is also not established that it is possible to convert the difference in risk level, if there is any, into numbers. He has also given a finding that there is no reliable method to convert the qualitative difference into quantitative difference to make adjustment on account of risk level. The TPO has also referred to Rule 10B (3) of IT Rules which says that if any adjustment should be made, it should be reasonably accurate to eliminate the material effects of such differences. Before us also, as per the synopsis reproduced above, the assessee has pointed out three options for risk adjustment but these are general in nature and the assessee has not established that there is any risk difference between the tested party and the comparables. In the absence of any working having been provided by the assessee showing difference in risk between the tested party and comparables and in the absence of any working regarding the assessee’s claim for risk adjustment, we find no reason to interfere in the order of DRP on this issue also. This issue is also decided against the assessee.
Inclusion of one comparable i.e. R Systems International Ltd. (segment) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee has submitted annual report of R Systems International for the year ending 31.12.2013 by way of additional evidence containing 1 to 188 pages and we find that the P&L account is available and although statement of P&L account is for year ended 31.12.2013 in the said additional evidence paper book but it is not shown to us that the figures for 31.03.2012 and 31.03.2013 are also available on any page of this additional evidence as has been noted by Punjab & Haryana High Court in M/S MERCER CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. GURGAON [2016 (8) TMI 1163 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] . But still we feel it proper to restore this matter back to the file of AO/TPO for fresh decision and we order accordingly. The AO/TPO is directed that if the assessee can establish that the figures for Financial Year ending on 31.03.2013 can be worked out from audited accounts of that company then it should be adopted and this comparable should be included in the list of comparables. If the assessee is not in a position to do so, then the TPO may again exclude the same.
Hence on this issue, we restore the matter back to the file of TPO for fresh decision in the light of above discussion in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
PLI of CG-VAK Software and Exports Ltd - It has to be found out from the annual report of the concerned company as to whether provision for doubtful debts is in relation to sale of the present year or of an earlier year. As per the annual report of this company available on pages 559 to 608 of paper book, this cannot be ascertained as to whether the provision for doubtful debts is against the turnover of the present year or of an earlier year. Generally the provision for doubtful debts is created in a later year when it is felt that the debt has become bad or doubtful and therefore, in the absence of any categorical reporting in the annual report that the provision for doubtful debts is against the turnover of the present year, it should be considered as provision against the turnover of an earlier year and therefore, the same cannot be considered as operating expenses for the current year in TP analysis. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of authorities below on this aspect. Therefore, we decline to interfere in the orders of lower authorities on this aspect and various judgments cited by ld. AR of assessee in the synopsis are not rendering any help to assessee because these judgments are only on this aspect that provision for doubtful debts is an operating expenditure but in our considered opinion, even after accepting this contention that provision for doubtful debts is operating expenditure, the same has to be excluded in TP analysis for the reasons discussed above.
Permissible RPT% Ffor selection of comparable - 25% RPT filter is proper and not 15%.
Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Exclusion of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd. - It is seen that our decision regarding these two comparables to restore back the matter to the file of TPO is fortified by this Tribunal order also in which, the tribunal has considered one more Tribunal order rendered in the case of Microsoft Research Lab India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017 (8) TMI 1585 - ITAT BANGALORE].
Disallowance being payment of commission disallowed by the AO u/s. 40(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- We find that this was held in FAIZAN SHOES PVT. LIMITED [2014 (8) TMI 170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] that where the assessee paid commission to non-resident agent for procuring orders for leather business from overseas buyers wholesalers or retailers, as the case may be, the non-resident agent is paid 2.5% commission on FOB basis. That appears to be a commission simpliciter and did not provide any technical services for purposes of running business in India. The assessee was not liable to deduct tax on such commission paid. As per the assessment order, this is not the case of the AO that the non-resident agent provided any technical services for the purposes of running business of the assessee in India we hold that the TDS was not required to be deducted from this payment of commission and therefore, disallowance made of this amount u/s. 40(a)(i) is not justified and hence we delete the same.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1687
Depreciation of goodwill Resulting From Acquisition Of Business Unit - HELD THAT:- this issue is fully covered by Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 in [2016 (7) TMI 1558 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein Tribunal following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] deleted the disallowance of depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1686
Netting off interest received u/s 244A - Interest received on refund of taxes u/s 244A - taxable income as against an amount offered by the assessee which was after netting of the interest paid to the Department u/S 220(2) and 234B - HELD THAT:- As decided in case of Bank of America NT and SA [2014 (12) TMI 551 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] The Assessee sought to set off the interest paid against the interest received and offered the net interest received to tax - in the case of the Assessee simply because the exercise carried out by it does not result in loss of revenue and there could not be any prohibition for the same, allowed it - assessee claimed that this was business expenditure and this should have been allowed - the Tribunal in permitting this exercise not violated any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - the Tribunal has followed the similar exercise in the case of very Assessee on the prior occasion as well – thus, as such no substantial question of law. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2018 (6) TMI 1685
Short Investigating Machinery - offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w. Section 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code - validity of remanding the Petitioner to Judicial Custody - whether the Petitioner's detention or rather continued detention beyond the statutory period by the police machinery is illegal or the Petitioner has not been released from the custody despite the mandate of the law being clear?
HELD THAT:- This is a case where the Petitioner was indeed produced before the Court of Special Judge and he was remanded to custody vide order of that Court passed by the Special Judge. The order of the Special Judge records as to how there is a charge-sheet filed and which we have reproduced above. The record indicates as to how the learned Judge indeed took it on record and then remanded the Petitioner to the custody. The order of the Special Judge therefore cannot be scrutinized by us and we are not concerned with this aspect of the matter. The Petitioner is free to adopt appropriate proceedings to question this action of the investigating machinery.
The filing of the charge-sheet by the prosecution as claimed and taking that on the record by the Court below thus is being harped upon, to challenge the detention. The ground as raised in the Petition and as elaborated in the Affidavit-in-Rejoinder with the aid of Annexure 'A' thereto is thus impugning the detention pursuant to an action and direction of the Court. However, police machinery has nowhere been accused of violating the constitutional mandate and has not been further accused of detaining the Petitioner in custody contrary to the said mandate.
Petition dismissed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1684
Seeking a direction to the official liquidator to take the possession of all the assets - HELD THAT:- Official liquidator is directed to take possession immediately of the assets mentioned in clauses (a) and (c) in Exh.'B' to the application along with any movables in those premises/location.
The official liquidator is also directed to make suitable arrangement for securing properties and the charges for the security agencies to be paid by applicant within two weeks of receiving a communication from OL. Respondent no.2 to file an affidavit in reply and serve copy by 15th June 2018. Rejoinder, if any, by 25th June 2018.
............
|
9911796707
