|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 2152 Records
-
2018 (9) TMI 1976
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Whether the ‘Axis Bank Ltd.’ was also ‘Counter Corporate Guarantor’, comes within the meaning of ‘Financial Creditor’ as defined under Section 5(7) & (8) of I&B Code?
HELD THAT:- Issue Notice.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1975
Seizure of goods of the petitioner in the Business place - Section 67 of the UPGST Act - Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed one month's time to file counter affidavit.
HELD THAT:- List this matter on 30.10.2018.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1974
Assessment of trust - assessee has not spent 85% towards object of the trust as noted by the AO - non filing Form No. 10 along with the return of income specifying that the surplus income was set apart for a particular purpose as prescribed under the object of the Trust - HELD THAT:- The assessee filed Form No. 10 along with the Board Resolution but did not specify the object for which particular amount was set apart. The AO accordingly did not consider Form No. 10 as it is invalid and made the additions. Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) but he did not improve his case and CIT(A) has also noted the defect in Form No. 10 as it did not specify the purpose for which surplus income is set apart. The CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the rejection of Form No. 10 and upheld the addition.
Though the assessee has filed an appeal before us and filed the written submissions relying upon certain case laws which were dealt with by the CIT(A) but did not appear at the time of hearing. we had no other option but to peruse the written submissions filed by the assessee. Along with the written submissions, copy of Form No. 10 was not filed, therefore, bound to accept the observations of the CIT(A) made with reference to Form No. 10. In Form No. 10, assessee is required to specify the purpose for which surplus income is set apart. If he fails to do so, he cannot get the benefit of filing Form No. 10. Under these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1973
TP Adjustment - Assessee has adopted TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Turnover Filter - Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dell International Services India (P.) Ltd. , [2017 (10) TMI 1376 - ITAT BANGALORE] we uphold the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals) in applying the upper turnover filter and excluding the five companies accordingly.
Abnormal Profits - It is now settled principle, upheld in several decisions that companies cannot be excluded from the set of comparables only because of abnormal profits, and the matter of comparability analysis in such cases would require further investigation to ascertain the reasons for unusually high profits in order to establish whether the entities with such high profits can be taken as comparable or not. As observed in the earlier paragraphs, there is no discussion by the learned CIT (Appeals) in the impugned order on the issue of abnormal profits; even though there was a caption to this effect and therefore the comparability or otherwise of these two companies namely, M/s. Exensys Software Solutions Ltd. and M/s. Thirdware Solutions Ltd. has not been discussed at all.
It is now settled principle, upheld in several decisions that companies cannot be excluded from the set of comparables only because of abnormal profits, and the matter of comparability analysis in such cases would require further investigation to ascertain the reasons for unusually high profits in order to establish whether the entities with such high profits can be taken as comparable or not. As observed in the earlier paragraphs, there is no discussion by the learned CIT (Appeals) in the impugned order on the issue of abnormal profits; even though there was a caption to this effect and therefore the comparability or otherwise of these two companies namely, M/s. Exensys Software Solutions Ltd. and M/s. Thirdware Solutions Ltd. has not been discussed at all
Rejecting the diminishing revenue filter used by the TPO to exclude companies not reflecting the industry trend - On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that none of the comparable companies have been either excluded OR included by the learned CIT (Appeals) due to decision on this filter.
Different Accounting Year - Quintegra Solutions Ltd. - In the case on hand, the assessee has not furnished any details of the financial results of the company. It is not known as to whether the quarterly results of the company are available on record. It is also not known whether such results, even if available, are reliable OR not. It is also not known whether from such details, the results can be extrapolated or not. No evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the above. In the absence of any details, we are unable to agree/concur with the assessee's contention.
As regards the computation of margin, it is settled principle that only the current financial year's data has to be considered; which has not been followed by the learned CIT (Appeals). No reasons have been adduced by the learned CIT (Appeals) for his direction that the average of two years margin has to be taken as the margin in this case. We do not agree with the decisions of the learned CIT (Appeals) on both disapproving of the different accounting year filter and in adopting the average of two years margin, and consequently set aside the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue and restore that of the TPO.
Exclusion of Tata Elxsi Ltd. - This company held to be functionally not comparable to the assessee.Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., is engaged in product development, software development and ITES and segmental details are not available. This finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) has not been controverted by the learned Departmental Representative for revenue.
Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. is engaged in product development, software development and ITES and segmental details are not available. This finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) has not been controverted by the learned Departmental Representative for revenue.
M/s. Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd company is engaged in developing and licensing of products and product life cycle management services which are not similar to the functions of the assessee.The revenue break up between products and services is not available and therefore directed exclusion of this company from the set of comparables..
VJIL Consulting Ltd. and Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. are predominantly an exporter of software development services thus need to be included.
Computation of Deduction under Section 10A - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] we direct the AO to allow assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10A.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1972
Disallowance u/s 14A - conflicting decision in the appeals for the very same assessment year - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, both the assessee and Revenue filed appeals for the assessment year 2012-13 against the very same order of the CIT(Appeals). In the assessee’s appeal, the disallowance was confirmed. However, in the Revenue’s appeal, the matter was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Therefore, apparently there is a conflicting judicial opinion. This happened due to the negligence of assessee and Revenue in not bringing to the notice of the Bench the pendency of other appeal at the time of hearing. Had it been brought to the notice of the Bench, the appeals would have been clubbed and common order would have been passed. Since such an exercise was not done, it resulted in conflicting judicial view. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-heard together.
Accordingly, the orders passed by this Tribunal are hereby recalled. The Registry is directed to post both the appeals for final disposal before regular Bench on 14.11.2018. Since the date of hearing was announced in the presence of both the parties, it may not be necessary for the Registry to issue a separate notice of hearing.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1971
Approval of Resolution plan - HELD THAT:- It is observed that as per the Resolution Plan, the board approves the restructuring of share capital can be carried out without being subject to the shareholders special resolution or the board resolution of the existing board for appointing the nominee(s) of the Board of Directors of the Resolution Applicant.
The resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant, Mr. Sarang S. Kale which was recommended by the COC vide meeting dated 18.06.2018 stands approved - The Resolution applicants are directed to adhere to the provisions of Section 53 of the IBC 2016 duly following the procedure for "water fall" in relation to the amounts brought in by the Resolution Applicants.
The Resolution Plan stands approved and the Resolution Process is to be concluded as per the terms of approved resolution plan with the modification made in para 10 of this Tribunal's order - Moratorium ceased to have effect.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1970
Grant of Regular Bail - sell/dispose of stocks without consent of the bank - It is also the allegation that borrower has submitted false and fabricated record and played fraud with the bank for getting excessive limit and a wrongful loss has been caused to the bank - HELD THAT:- No doubt while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused and facts and circumstances of the case. It is also one of the factors while considering the bail that that is a reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. The larger interest of the public/State and some other similar considerations are also there. However, for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence", which means the Court while dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charges.
It is a settled preposition of law that while granting bail though the Court may impose reasonable conditions as it thinks fit but the object of putting conditions is to avoid the possibility of the person hampering investigation. The discretion of the Court while putting condition is to be in exercise of judicial discretion.
Without commenting anything on the merits of the case as allegations are matter of evidence to be tested by the trial Court during the course of trial and by considering that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year and two months and also the fact that challan has been presented before the trial Court, the offences are triable by Magistrate - petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ' 5 lacs with the sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1969
Oppression and Mismanagement - sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 - bar provided under section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 - transfer of shares by way of gift deed by the petitioner to her mother in law - resignation of the petitioner from the post of executive director of respondent No. 1- company.
Whether the alleged transfer of 39,500 equity shares dated December 17, 2010 by way of gift deed by the petitioner to her mother in law, is valid? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of clause 16 of the articles of association, it is clear that the restriction on transfer by way of gift is permissible to certain relations only and mother-in-law of the transferor is not covered under the relations specified in clause 16 of the articles of association - it is clear that the gift of shares made to respondent No. 5, i.e., mother-in-law of the petitioner is in contradiction with clause 16 of the articles of association.
It is clear that transfer of petitioner's share- holding, i.e., 39,500 shares in respondent No. 1-company to her mother- in-law respondent No. 5 Smt. Manjula Jhunjhunwala is not a valid transfer. It is also clear that there is manipulation in the alleged share transfer form. The share transfer form was not valid on the date when the share transfer form was executed. No validity can be extended of such document, which was invalid on the date of execution itself. The position would have been different if the validity of the document would have expired after execution of the document, the then Registrar of Companies was authorised to extend the validity either before the expiry of the validity or after the expiry of the validity of document under sub-section (1)(d) of section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. But in this case, proper procedure has not been adhered by the Registrar of Companies, Kanpur and Form 7C was allowed even though form was incomplete. In the circumstances, we hold that the alleged transfer of 39,500 shares in favour of Manjula Jhunjhunwala is not valid. This issue is decided negative in favour of the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is not eligible to present this petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Act in view of bar provided under section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956? - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the company has power to allot fresh shares instead of the forfeited shares. Company also has power to permit the shareholders of the forfeited shares to receive the unpaid money and validate the forfeited shares, but in this case company has failed to issue fresh shares in lieu of forfeited shares, therefore forfeited shares cannot be taken into account to examine the eligibility of the petitioner to file the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is clear that out of 40,000 valid shares issued by the company petitioner holds 39,500 shares, which is about 98 per cent. Therefore, the petitioner was fully qualified to present the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 - the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Whether the alleged resignation letter dated December 17, 2010 of the petitioner from the post of executive director of respondent No. 1-company is valid? - Whether the alleged board resolution dated December 17, 2010 regarding acceptance of the alleged resignation of the petitioner from the post of executive director of the company is valid? - HELD THAT:- The notice of board meeting is an essential element for the validity of the resolutions passed in the alleged board meeting. The respondent claims that board meeting took place on December 17, 2010. But the respondent has not filed any document to rebut the stand of the petitioner that no valid meeting of the board were held on December 17, 2010. Admittedly the petitioner was executive director and major shareholder of the company having 98 per cent. shareholding in the company then why petitioner was not called in the alleged board meeting dated December 17, 2010 creates doubt on the claim of the respondent that board of directors accepted the resignation of the petitioner from the post of executive director on December 17, 2010. The respondent has not filed the minutes of the alleged board meeting dated December 17, 2010 therefore, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted that the petitioner's resignation was accepted by the board of directors in its meeting dated December 17, 2010 - thus, it is clear that the respondent contention that the petitioner tendered resignation from the post of executive director on December 17, 2010 and the same was accepted by the board of directors on the same day cannot be accepted.
The respondent has manipulated the resignation letter of the petitioner from the post of executive director of the respondent No. 1-company. The respondents has wrongly stated that the resignation letter of the petitioner from the post of executive director was accepted in the board meeting dated December 17, 2010. The respondent has failed to file any document to show that the board meeting took held on December 15, 2010 and December 17, 2010. Since the board meeting was not, held on the alleged dates, therefore the question of granting validity to the alleged resolution passed in the meeting dated December 15, 2010 and December 17, 2010 does not arises - The respondent has also failed to prove that the petitioner herself gifted her entire shareholding in the company in favour of respondent No. 5 Ms. Manjula Jhunjhunwala.
The removal of the petitioner from the post of executive director by manipulation of documents and preparation of alleged gift deed and transfer certificate of entire shareholding of the petitioner in the name of Manjula Jhunjhunwal, respondent No. 5 is clear result of the oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of respondent No. 1-company conducted by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1968
Exemption u/s 11 - corpus donations/funds receipts - as per assessee utilisation of the corpus donations/funds could not be construed as the “Income derived from property” held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, hence the application of the same could not be brought within the sweep of Sec. 11(1)(a) - whether, the CIT(A) was right in law and facts of the case in allowing the carry forward of the deficit of earlier years, for being set off against the surplus of subsequent years of the assessee trust ? - HELD THAT:- This issue involved in the case before us is squarely covered by the judgment of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking [2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while dismissing the appeal of the revenue had observed, that as the income of the trust was to be computed on commercial principles, thus adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years, against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year, was to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year.
Hon‟ble High Court had in unequivocal terms observed, that the adjustment of the expenses incurred by the trust in the earlier years, against the surplus of the subsequent year, will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under Sec. 11(1)(a).
Similar view had been taken in the case of CIT(Exemption) Vs. Subros Educational Society [2018 (4) TMI 1622 - SC ORDER] dismissed the appeal of the revenue and had declined to dislodge the observations of the High Court, that the excess expenditure incurred by the charitable trust/charitable institution in an earlier assessment year were to be allowed to be set off against the income of subsequent years by invoking Sec. 11 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1967
Reduction of Share Capital - Notification Nos. G. S. R. 1119(E) - HELD THAT:- There is no adverse material available on record which goes against the relief sought for by the petitioner-company seeking proposed reduction of share capital nor it will prejudicially affect the interest of any shareholder or creditor nor it will have any adverse effect on public at large. Further, the accounting treatment, as proposed by the company for such reduction of the share capital is in conformity with the accounting standards specified in section 133 and other provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Hence, it may be seen that the petitioner-company has duly complied with all statutory requirements pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal and filed necessary affidavit of undertaking before this Tribunal.
In the matter of HINDUSTHAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. VERSUS HINDUSTHAN GENERAL ELECTRICAL CORPN. [1959 (8) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA], the Calcutta High Court held that the question of reducing capital is a domestic affair to be decided by the majority. The court further held that the Companies Act, 1956 leaves it to the company to decide for itself the extent and mode of reduction and application of the moneys thereby. This is, however, subject to the confirmation of the court, which is required for safeguarding the interests of creditors and minority shareholders and seeing that it is fair, just and reasonable.
The prescribed statutory procedure have been duly followed with the approval of the members and creditor of the company and that no objection has been received against the proposed reduction and therefore proposed reduction can be confirmed by passing order in terms of rule 6 of the Rules - Registrar of Companies shall issue a certificate of Registration of Order and Minute in Form RSC-7 of the National Company Law Tribunal (Procedure for Reduction of Share Capital of Company) Rules, 2016.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1966
Oppression and mismanagement - Cancellation of shares transfer - HELD THAT:- There is no loan outstanding but investment has been shown representing that the loan has been repaid by this company in between and it has also made investment for the same amount necessitating looking into actual transfer of money both for repayment of loan as well as acquisition of shares of the same value. We have not examined this issue in detail because we have no benefit of examination of the NCLT over the issue. It is in the interest of fairness that NCLT must look into so called vital documents as the company petition has been decided by the NCLT.
The matter is remanded back to the NCLT to take the documents into consideration and hear both the parties afresh in the light of the documents and then decide the company petition - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1965
Oppression and Mismanagement - Rejection of impleadment of appellant - Appellant claimed that the original Petitioner was indulging in illegalities and non-compliance and fabrication of documents and claimed dismissal of the Company Petition - HELD THAT:- The NCLT could not have again sat over the matter to see whether the Appellant had made out a case or not of being shareholder. The original Petitioner has proposed to maintain the petition on the basis of support of 23 members. The Appellant was pointing out that the claim on the basis of which 23 members claimed rights, is a disputed question and the Respondents from whom those persons claimed to have got rights was the disputed question. In such situation in the first place itself, CA 1/2013 should have been allowed. When the rejecting of the CA 1/2013 had been set aside, it was not proper for NCLT not to treat the Appellant as the impleaded Respondent. At such preliminary stage, it was not necessary for the NCLT to go into what has been observed in OS 590 of 2009 relating to disputes between the parties, especially when it is stated before us (and not denied by the counsel for Respondents) that Appeal against the Impugned Order in OS 590 of 2009 is still pending.
The impleadment application already stood disposed vide this Tribunal’s earlier Judgement and the NCLT had no other option but to proceed with the matter treating the Appellant as party Respondent - petition disposed off.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1964
Issues:
1) Appointment of a new Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors.
2) Extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) time period.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Appointment of a new Resolution Professional
The petition filed by Karnataka Bank Limited sought to appoint a new Resolution Professional, Shri Shivadutta Bannanje, in place of the previously appointed professional, Shri R.L Bhatia. The Committee of Creditors, consisting of Karnataka Bank Limited as the sole member, passed a resolution to appoint Shri Bannanje based on his qualifications and consent to carry out the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the Applicant's Counsel, Shri Y.P. Gokul, and examining the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, approved the appointment of Shri Bannanje as the Resolution Professional to handle the CIRP for the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found the appointment justified as it was made by the sole Committee member, and thus, allowed the petition for the appointment of the new Resolution Professional.
Issue 2: Extension of CIRP time period
The Committee of Creditors also sought an extension of the CIRP time period by an additional 90 days beyond the original 180-day period. The grounds for this extension included the bonafide and unintentional delay in the resolution process, the inability of the Interim Resolution Professional to convene the Committee of Creditors meeting due to the expiry of his term, and the unavailability of officers from the Financial and Operational Creditors to conduct necessary meetings. The Tribunal considered these grounds and granted the extension of the CIRP time period as requested by the Committee of Creditors. The Tribunal's decision to extend the CIRP time period was based on the genuine reasons provided by the Committee of Creditors, ensuring that the resolution process could be completed effectively.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case addressed the issues of appointing a new Resolution Professional and extending the CIRP time period in a thorough manner, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The decision was made after careful consideration of the facts presented and in accordance with the legal framework governing corporate insolvency proceedings.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1963
Default in holding 10th AGM - service of notice for the AGM - HELD THAT:- The Appellant Board has to send its nominee to the Board of Respondent No. 2. It is for the Appellant itself to put its house in order. If it endlessly delays taking steps to ensure that nominee is selected and sent, AGMs of Respondent No. 2 cannot remain suspended. If not already compiled the Orders of NCLT need to be complied urgently. The Appellant may take any suitable steps to get the required directions from the relevant authorities in the Government but the orders as given by NCLT are required to be carried out considering the provisions of the Companies Act which make it necessary for the Company to hold the AGM regularly. Appellant is directed to depute a nominee urgently, as per directions given in the Impugned Order.
The directions given by NCLT be implemented by parties. The period of 60 days as mentioned in Impugned Order be calculated from the date of this Order, i.e. 26th September, 2018 - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1962
TCS @ 5% on sale of Tendu leafs - order passed under section 206C(6) / 206C(7) - Period of limitation to pass order - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (9) TMI 1234 - ITAT JAIPUR] liability of tax collected at source is also a vicarious liability of the assessee to assist the department in the measure to avoid any possibility of tax avoidance by the persons with whom the specific transactions have been entered into by the assessee.
The provisions of Section 201 and 206C of the Act are having same scheme and object being the measures against the avoidance of tax by the opposite parties with whom the assessee had the transactions. Hence, applying the reasonable period of limitation as four years within which the Assessing Officer could pass the order U/s 206C(6)/206C(7) of the Act, we hold that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer on 30/3/2016 is beyond the said reasonable period of limitation and consequently is invalid being barred by limitation. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order passed U/s 206C(6)/206C(7) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (9) TMI 1961
Disallowance of bad debts written off - AO had accepted the debt to be bad, but had disallowed the claim deeming it to be premature - HELD THAT:- It is clear that debt arose on account of trading in commodities in the exchange and not due to sale of any capital assets.
It is clear that once a debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it has to be allowed. It is not required that debt should have arose on account of transactions in any preceding years. Once a debt is claimed as bad and written off in the accounts it has to be allowed. No doubt, if the assessee at a later point of time recovers any money against any sum, it is bound to show it as income. Considering the judgment in the case of T.R.F. Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the opinion that the claim of the assessee had to be allowed. Orders of the lower authorities on this issue are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1960
Jurisdiction to examine matters relating to the Copyright Act - Rejection of petitioner's application filed under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 on the ground that there is no technical member (copyright) to place the application before the Appellate Board and, therefore, till such time that a technical member (copyright) is appointed, the matters relating to Copyright Act would not be listed before the Appellate Board - HELD THAT:- By virtue of the Finance Act, 2017, Section 11 of the Copyright Act was amended and provisions for constitution of a Copyright Board were substituted. Therefore, with effect from 26.05.2017, there was no statutory provision for constitution of a Copyright Board. Section 11 of the Copyright Act, as substituted with effect from 26.05.2017 - with the introduction of the said statutory amendment, there is now no requirement for constitution of a Copyright Board. However, the Copyright Rules, 2013 - which came into force with effect from 14.03.2013 - were not amended to incorporate a corresponding change necessary as a consequence of the amendment in the Copyright Act. The said Rules were framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 78 of the Copyright Act, which enables the Central Government to frame rules "for carrying out the purposes of the Act". Clearly, the said Rules, insofar as they provide for composition of a Copyright Board, serve no purpose of Copyright Act. Rule 3 of the said rules is superfluous since the Copyright Act, itself, does no longer provide for constitution of a Copyright Board.
A conjoint reading of Section 11 of the Copyright Act and Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act clearly indicates that the Appellate Board as constituted under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act would also have the jurisdiction to perform the functions under the Copyright Act as well. There is no dispute that an Appellate Board has been validly constituted in terms of Section 84 of the Trade Marks Act and is now functional. Thus, it is also required to "exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on it by or under this Act [the Copyright Act]".
It is directed that the petitioner's application be placed before the Appellate Board as is currently constituted. The Appellate Board shall examine the same in accordance with law - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1959
Approval of Resolution Plan - impugned order was passed without notice and hearing the appellant (Operational Creditor) - violation of Section 30(2) of the I&B Code - HELD THAT:- Such submission cannot be accepted as there is no requirement to issue notice to the ‘Operational Creditor(s)’ or any other ‘creditors’ for approving a ‘Resolution Plan’ under Section 31 of the I&B Code, having already approved by the ‘Committee of Creditors’ by majority voting share and in absence of any violation of Section 30(2) of the I&B Code.
It was next contended that under the provisions of ‘Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2015’, no electrical connection can be restored in favour of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ till the total amount due to the Electricity Company (appellant herein) is paid - HELD THAT:- Such submission cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the I&B Code, where it was made clear that the ‘Resolution Plan’ is binding on the ‘Corporate Debtors’, ‘Financial Creditors’, ‘Operational Creditors’ and all other ‘stakeholders’ including ‘guarantors’. The provision of Section 31 being binding on the appellant - ‘Operational Creditor’, in view of Section 238 of the I&B Code, the provisions of ‘Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and related matters) Regulations, 2015’, cannot override the same.
As per the approved ‘Resolution Plan’ a sum of ₹ 80.80 Lakhs is payable to the appellant (Operational Creditor). The said amount having paid by the successful ‘Resolution Applicant’, the appellant in its turn is required to restore the electricity connection of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ - there are no merits in the present appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1958
Time Limitation - Suit for recovery along with interest - decree on admission under Order 13A Rule 3 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act - HELD THAT:- The acknowledgement of the debt in the balance sheet extends the period of limitation. The acknowledgement is as on 31.3.2015. This suit is filed in 2017. The suit is clearly within limitation The present application is allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1957
Deduction u/s.80IA - assessee treated ‘Sales Tax Benefit’ received from the Government as income derived from generation of power and accordingly, claimed deduction u/s.80IA - HELD THAT:- As decided in Dy.CIT Vs. Indo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd [2017 (12) TMI 1758 - ITAT PUNE] and M/S. PATANKAR WIND FARM PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2015 (5) TMI 147 - ITAT PUNE]assessee is not eligible for claiming benefit of deduction u/s.80IA(4) in respect of ‘Sales Tax Benefit’ received from the State Government. - Decided against assessee.
............
|
9911796707
