|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1903 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1729
Appeal admitted on the following reframed substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the assessee qualifies for deduction of profits u/s. 80IB(10) on prorata basis even though it has not fulfilled the provision of clause 'c' of section 80IB(10)?”
-
2015 (12) TMI 1728
Show-cause notice for cancellation of contract - Held that:- We are of the considered view that in any case before 31.12.2015, the authorities of the respondents did not have any authority to issue show-cause notice for cancellation of contract unless some new circumstance comes in existence before expiry of such extended period and in that regard, no averments are made in the impugned show cause notice although it appears from the record that the prayer of the petitioner for extending the further period of six months from 31.12.2015 to complete the work was pending before the authority of respondent No. 2. In such premises, the impugned show-cause notice Annexure P-10 deserves to be and is hereby quashed.
It is also apparent from the papers placed on the record that even after filing this petition under the authority of interim order of this Court the remaining excavation/digging work of tunnel was/is being carried out by the petitioner but payment of running bills was not made within time to the petitioner to meet the necessary expenses to pay the wages to the labourers and to maintain the deployed machinery and in such premises, it could be said that due to late payment or non-payment of running bills of the petitioner within time it could not manage the requisite infrastructure to carry out the work. In such premises, we direct the authorities to make the regular payment of running bills to the petitioner within time in accordance with the procedure without any hurdle or hindrance to carry out the remaining work within the prescribed and extended period.
In the available scenario, it is apparent that due to non-cooperation of the respondents- authorities till some extent and unnecessary process of the show cause notice Annexure P-10 issued contrary to the Departmental communication Annexure P-9 and on account of non-making the payment of the running bills regularly within time, the petitioner could not complete the work of contract within time. It also appears that the excavation work of tunnel is almost near to be completed. The same may be completed within some period and on such reasons, the petitioner appears to be entitled for extension of the period of further six months under the relevant clauses and terms of the contract. Such observation is being made, keeping in view that if by rescinding the contract of the petitioner, the authorities of the respondents proceed to carry out the remaining work through some other agency, then again long time would be required for NIT process and finalization of contract and issuing the work order and in that circumstance, the remaining work of the contract could not be completed in short period and consequently, the public work will suffer and the agriculturists could not get the water for irrigation of their field in early days.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1727
Cross examination - supply of documents - Held that: - learned counsel for the petitioner states that an appropriate application for the same would be filed before the adjudicating authority within a week and the adjudicating authority shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter - petition disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1726
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - tax effect - Held that:- In the present case, tax effect on account of the relief granted by the CIT(A) which led to the filing of the present appeal by the Revenue, is admittedly, less than ₹ 10 lakhs.
In the light of the circular dated 10.12.2015, issued by the CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred in it by subsection (1) of S.268A, we are of the view that the appeal filed herein should not have been pressed by the Revenue. The Learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the Revenue effect in this appeal is less than the limit prescribed in para-3 of the above circular issued by the CBDT. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn/not pressed
-
2015 (12) TMI 1725
Scheme of arrangement - directions issued pertaining to the meeting of the Secured Creditors - Held that:- The meeting of Secured Creditors could not be held and all the Secured Creditors instead of attending the meeting have given their consent in writing, in approval of the Scheme of Arrangement. In the facts and circumstances, the directions contained to the extent of holding and convening the meeting of the Secured Creditors are directed to be omitted. Further, in view of the fact that all the Secured Creditors have given their consent, in writing, in approval of the Scheme, the meeting of the Secured Creditors is ordered to be dispensed with.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1724
Scheme of arrangement - directions issued pertaining to the meeting of the Secured Creditors - Held that:- The meeting of Secured Creditors could not be held and all the Secured Creditors instead of attending the meeting have given their consent in writing, in approval of the Scheme of Arrangement. In the facts and circumstances, the directions contained to the extent of holding and convening the meeting of the Secured Creditors are directed to be omitted. Further, in view of the fact that all the Secured Creditors have given their consent, in writing, in approval of the Scheme, the meeting of the Secured Creditors is ordered to be dispensed with.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1723
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the Scheme and the proceedings, it appears that the requirements of the provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 are satisfied. The Scheme appears to be genuine and bonafide and in the interest of the shareholders and creditors. This Court, therefore, accordingly allows the Company Petitions and approves the Scheme. The Scheme is sanctioned. The prayers made in the respective Company Petitions are hereby granted.
The petitions are allowed accordingly. Fees of Mr. Devang Vyas are quantified at ₹ 7,500/in each of the petitions. The said fees would be paid by the Transferee Company. The fees of the Official Liquidator are quantified at ₹ 7500/in respect of Company Petition No. 392 of 2015. The said fees to the Official Liquidator shall be paid by the Transferee Company/ Transferor Company.
Filing and issuance of drawn up orders are dispensed with. All concerned authorities to act on a copy of this order along with the Scheme duly authenticated by the Registrar, High Court, Gujarat. The Registrar, High Court of Gujarat shall issue the authenticated copy of this order alongwith Scheme within 15 days of passing of this order.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1722
Scheme of demerger - directions to convene meeting of the Equity Shareholders of Resulting Company/ Petitioner Company II and secured and unsecured creditors of the Resulting Company and Equity Shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of Demerged Company/ Petitioner Company I - Held that:- The Scheme is for the benefit of all the members of the companies. The creditors of the companies are in no way affected or prejudiced by the approval of the scheme.
In this view of the aforesaid factual matrix, when all the Equity Shareholders and unsecured creditors of the Quatrro Business Support Services Private Limited (Demerged Company/ Petitioner Company I) and secured and unsecured creditors of the Quatrro Global Services Private Limited (Resulting Company/ Petitioner Company II) have given their consent to the Scheme of Arrangement, I do not find any reason to decline the prayer to dispense with their meeting. Accordingly, their meeting is dispensed with.
There is no secured creditor of petitioner company I.
As far as the prayer of counsel for the petitioner regarding convening the meeting of Equity Shareholders of the petitioner company II, is concerned, the prayer is justified. Accordingly, it is directed that a meeting of Equity Shareholders of the petitioner company II be convened accordingly. The scheme put up in the meeting of the Equity Shareholders shall be approved/ decided by the majority in number and by minimum 75% in value of the Equity Shareholders present and voting either in person or proxy.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1721
Winding up petition - petitioner have a claim of Euro 447,798.50/- against the respondent which was payable under a letter of guarantee issued by the respondent and the respondent has failed and neglected to make the payment - whether the respondent has a bonafide defense? - Held that:- Exchange of correspondence, copies whereby filed alongwith various affidavits that the dispute raised by the respondent was substantial and genuine and not spurious, speculative or misconceived. The company court cannot hold a full trial of the matter. The company court has to only see whether the ground appeared to be substantial. In my view, the ground of dispute raised is rather substantial.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1720
Computation of pension - taking into account the period of suspension - qualifying service of the appellant for determining the pension - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.
Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the respondent has fixed the appellant's pension after excluding the period of suspension (9 years and 26 days). In other words, the respondents while calculating the qualifying service of the appellant for determining his pension did not take into account the period of suspension from 06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999.
We are of the view that the period of suspension should have been taken into account by the respondents for determining the appellant's pension and we accordingly do so.
Appeal succeeds and is allowed in part only to the extent indicated above in relation to fixation of appellant's pension. The respondents are accordingly directed to re-determine the appellant’s pension by taking into account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999) and then pay to the appellant arrears of the difference amount from the date he became eligible to claim pension and then to continue to pay the appellant re-determined pension regularly in future as per Rules. It is to be done within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1719
Scheme of amalgamation - Holding Transferee Company requirement to take out separate proceedings for obtaining the sanction to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of its wholly owned subsidiary companies with itself? - Held that:- No separate proceedings is required to be undertaken by Transferee Company being the Holding Company under the provisions of Sec. 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. Petition admitted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1718
Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Demerger - Held that:- It appears to the Court that the consent of all the Equity Shareholders and the Unsecured Creditor of the applicant Company has been obtained. In view of the above, the meetings of the Equity Shareholders and the Unsecured Creditor of the applicant Company are ordered to be dispensed with.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1717
Scheme of demerger - Held that:- Having heard Mr.Navin K. Pahwa, learned advocate for Thakkar and Pahwa Advocates, learned advocate for the applicant and having perused the record, it appears to the Court that the consent of all the Equity Shareholders of the applicant Company has been obtained. In view of the above, the meeting of the Equity Shareholders of the applicant Company is ordered to be dispensed with.
Upon hearing the learned advocate and upon perusing the affidavit dated 27.11.2015 filed in support of the Judges' Summons for direction, with other relevant annexures attached in support of the contents of the affidavit filed by the deponent and copy of the proposed Scheme of Arrangement. Dispensing with the meetings adhered to.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1716
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, and looking to the consent letters produced at page Nos.32, 32A and 32B at AnnexureD of the application, the meetings of the Shareholders and the sole Secured Creditor of the applicant Company are not necessary and the said meetings of the Shareholders and sole Secured Creditor, are hereby dispensed with.
A meeting of the Unsecured Creditors of the applicant Company shall be convened and held at the registered office of the petitioner Company at Block No.08, PhaseB, Village Dumad, Savli Road, Vadodara391740, in the State of Gujarat on Saturday, the 23rd day of January, 2016 at 1.00 p.m. (13.00 hours), for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit approving, with or without modification, the Scheme of merger of the applicant Company and their respective Unsecured Creditors.
At least 21 clear days before the day appointed for the meeting to be held as aforesaid, an advertisement convening the said meetings indicating the day, the date, the place and time aforesaid and stating that copies of the said Scheme of Merger, the statement required to be furnished pursuant to Section 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Form of Proxy can be obtained free of charge at the registered office of the applicant Company, be inserted once in English daily newspaper “Indian Express” and the Gujarati daily newspaper “Jansatta”, both Vadodara editions. Publication of the advertisement in the Gujarat Government Gazette is dispensed with.
The settling and/or approval of the advertisement, the form of notice and the statement to accompany the notice by the Registrar of this Court is dispensed with.
The Chairman appointed for the aforesaid meeting shall issue the notices of the meetings referred to above.The quorum for the said meeting of the Unsecured Creditors shall be five persons in person.
The Voting by proxy be permitted, provided that the proxy in the prescribed form, duly signed by the person entitled to attend and vote at the meeting, is filed with the applicant Company at its registered office, not later than 48 hours before the respective meetings.
The value of each Unsecured Creditor shall be in accordance with the books of the applicant Company and where the entries in the books are disputed, the Chairman shall determine the value for purposes of the meeting and his decision in that behalf shall be final.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1715
Scheme of amalgamation - dispensing with necessary meetings - Held that:- Holding of the meeting of the Shareholders of the applicant Company is not necessary and the said meeting of shareholders is hereby dispensed with.
It is stated in paragraphs 10 and 15 of the affidavit in support of the Judges' Summons, that GPSIN – the Transferor Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GPIN the Transferee Company, and the rights and interests of the creditors of the applicant Transferee Company shall not be affected in any manner as a result of the proposed Scheme. The proposed Scheme does not envisage any arrangement or compromise with the creditors of the Transferee Company. The applicant Company shall continue its business operations as the amalgamated Company after such amalgamation of the Transferor Company with the applicant Company. The Transferee Company will fulfill all its liabilities towards its creditors in the normal course of business. The attention of the Court is drawn to the Certificate dated 30.11.2015 issued by the Chartered Accountant (AnnexureE).
Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is held that the approval of the Creditors of the Transferee Company is not necessary and the meetings of such creditors is hereby dispensed with.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1714
TDS u/s 194C OR 194I - TDS liability on crane hire charges - Held that:- The issue arising in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT [2013 (11) TMI 1263 - ITAT PUNE]. The amended provisions of section 194I came into effect from 13.07.2006, under which the definition of rent was amended to include the rent on plant as defined in section 43(3) of the Act. The year under appeal is financial year 2006-07 i.e. up to 31.03.2006, hence, the amended provisions of section 194I are not attracted. The assessee was duty bound to deduct tax at source under the provisions of section 194C of the Act @ 2% out of crane hire charges. The assessee had deducted the said tax at source @ 2%, hence, there is no default attributable to the assessee in this regard. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1713
Scheme of Arrangement - dispensing with the meeting of the Equity Shareholders, Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Transferor Company- Held that:- When all the Equity Shareholders and unsecured creditors of the Scope E-Knowledge Center Private Limited (Transferor Company/ Petitioner Company I) and secured and unsecured creditors of the Quatrro Global Services Private Limited (Transferee Company/ Petitioner Company II) have given their consent to the Scheme of Arrangement, I do not find any reason to decline the prayer to dispense with their meeting. Accordingly, their meeting is dispensed with.
There is no secured creditor of Petitioner Company I. As far as the prayer of counsel for the petitioner regarding convening the meeting of Equity Shareholders of the petitioner company II, is concerned, the prayer is justified. Accordingly, it is directed that a meeting of Equity Shareholders of the Petitioner Company II be convened accordingly.
The meeting shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law and after due notification/notice to all concerned including publication in the newspapers namely “Indian Express” (English) and “Jan Satta” (Hindi)”, both Delhi/NCR Editions, and publication in the Official Gazette of Government of Haryana. Notice of the meeting of the equity shareholders Petitioner company II shall be issued at least 21 days before the date of proposed meeting. Individual notices be also sent to the Equity Shareholders of the company through post. The scheme put up in the meeting of the Equity Shareholders shall be approved/ decided by the majority in number and by minimum 75% in value of the Equity Shareholders present and voting either in person or proxy.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1712
Scheme of demerger - directions to convene meeting of the Equity Shareholders Demerged Company/ Petitioner Company I) and dispensation of meetings of the secured and unsecured creditors of the Demerged Company and Equity Shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of Resulting Company/ Petitioner Company II - The meeting shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law and after due notification/notice to all concerned including publication in the newspapers namely “Indian Express” (English) and “Jan Satta” (Hindi)”, both Delhi/NCR Editions, and publication in the Official Gazette of Government of Haryana. Notice of the meeting of the equity shareholders of the Petitioner Company-I shall be issued at least 21 days before the date of proposed meeting. Individual notices be also sent to the Equity Shareholders of the company through post - The scheme put up in the meeting of the Equity Shareholders shall be approved/ decided by the majority in number and by minimum 75% in value of the equity shareholders present and voting either in person or proxy.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1711
Bogus long term capital gains - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- The action u/s 68 of the Act has been taken merely on the basis of the statement of the third party. We find that the assessee's have duly proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the broker from whom the sale proceeds of shares were received by the assesses and hence the resultant long term capital gains thereon cannot be doubted with. Hence there is no scope for making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - addition on the basis of the statement of the third party - Held that:- Rule 8D of the Rules came into effect from 24.3.2008. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing case (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) had held that provisions of Rule 8D could be made applicable only from Asst Year 2008-09. The assessment year under appeal for all the assesses before us is Asst Year 2005-06 and hence the Learned AO erred in invoking Rule 8D of the Rules for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the absence of these factual findings, AO cannot straight away resort to make disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and hence the addition made on this account for all the assesses are deleted. Accordingly, the grounds raised by all the assesses in this regard are allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1710
Eligibility of tender process - Held that:- In view of the perverse manner in which the entire process had been conducted and the repeated abortive attempts to award the selfsame titles in favour of the appellant even prior to the tendering process, persuades one to hold that the impugned work order issued in favour of the appellant by the President is a product of arbitrariness and favouritism and is liable to be quashed. Public law remedies are to ensure a fair, just and transparent procedure in the realm of awarding contracts in public law and the Courts ought not to shy away from quashing decisions which are patently vitiated with fraud, illegality or arbitrariness even at the behest of a participating bidder if the usufruct of such illegality or arbitrariness has not enured to his benefit nor he has taken undue advantage of the same.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, decision of the learned Single Judge to quash the work order for the year 2015-2016 cannot be faulted. However, in the light of the fact that the Council ought to have resorted to fresh tender after alteration of tender conditions instead of resorting to illegal negotiations it cannot be concluded with certainty that the writ petitioner was entitled to the allotment of the work as a matter of right in the instant case and accordingly he is not entitled to compensation in the public law domain in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
No one has disputed the authenticity of the records of the proceedings of the Council or the letter written by its President communicating the view of the academic committee of the Council in the matter. No dissenting opinion of any member of the Council to such view has been placed before the Court. Accordingly, it can safely be concluded that the aforesaid decision is in effect of the Council itself and no further interference is called for in the matter. It is however directed if the Council desires to print and/or publish any of the books which are subject matter of the tender for the year 2015-2016 through an outside agency it must do so by holding a fresh tender.
............
|
9911796707
