|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1309 Records
-
2020 (9) TMI 1130 - ITAT BANGALORE
Rectification u/s 254 - part of income which was not accounted on the basis of accrual system of accounting had been offered to tax in the very same assessment year i.e., AY 2012-13 - plea of assessee that the sum added by the AO on the basis of mercantile system of accounting was offered by the assessee to tax in a later assessment year as income and therefore the addition made will amount to taxation of the same income twice - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the words “either in this year or” should be added to line 6 of para 14 of the order of Tribunal, after the words “how the income offered” so that the 6th line of para 14 reads as under:-
“how the income offered either in this year or in a later assessment year was income which was”
We hold and order accordingly.
Absence of insertion of the aforesaid words in the order of Tribunal would give rise to an interpretation, which may not be in tune with the intent of para 14, which is that, the same income cannot be taxed twice.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1129 - ITAT BANGALORE
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Capital gains chargeable to tax - sum was received by the assessee on his retirement from a partnership firm - Tribunal said that right of a partner in the firm is a capital asset and when that is relinquished, the consideration paid on such relinquishment, over and above the sum credited to the capital account of the concerned partner should be regarded as capital gain and brought to tax. Goodwill was not an asset which was subject matter of transfer and therefore the provisions of section 55(2)(a) of the Act will not apply - HELD THAT:- What was subject matter of transfer was right of partner in the partnership firm which comprises of several components, goodwill being one of the components. Apart from the above, we are also of the view that the issue that is sought to be agitated by the revenue in this miscellaneous petition is a highly debatable issue. The jurisdiction u/s. 254(2) of the Act confined only to rectifying mistakes that are apparent on the face of record.
In the garb of an application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the assessee cannot seek a review of the order of Tribunal. There is no mistake apparent on the face of the record. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in this petition filed by the revenue and accordingly dismiss the same.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1128 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - addition in respect of notional annual letting value on unsold flats held as stock in trade - assessee contended that notional annual letting value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade is a debatable issue - HELD THAT:- In the present case we are of considered view that the assessment order sought to be revised does not suffer from error as pointed by the PCIT. Merely for the reason that PCIT does not agree with one of the possible view taken by the AO, would not make the assessment order erroneous. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
We may also like to add here that sub-section (5) to Section 23 has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01-4-2018, whereby notional annual value of property/part of property held has stock-in-trade has been brought to tax subject to conditions specified in the newly inserted sub-section. The amendment is substantive in nature and hence, would be effective prospectively i.e. it would no application in the impugned assessment year.
No addition on account of notional rental value of the flats held as stock in trade by the assessee could have been made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year.
We hold that the PCIT clearly fell in error in invoking revisonal jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Revision u/s 263 - Income from House Property - AO being satisfied with the reply made no additions on account of notional rental value of flats in inventory - HELD THAT:- We find that facts in the assessment year under appeal are pari-materia to the facts in the assessment year 2014-15. The reasons for invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in both the assessment years are identical. The findings given by us while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present appeal. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1127 - ITAT DELHI
Unaccounted cash receipt for sale of property - during the course of examination by the Investigation Wing, the assessee was confronted with a receipt and the assessee was never asked for any further amount received by him - cancelled receipt which the Investigation Wing considered proper not to confront with the assessee - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the receipt which is placed shows that it is a cancelled one.
AO has not confronted the contents of the said receipts from Shri Shashi Kant Aggarwal, although his complete address was mentioned in the said sheet of paper. Since the Investigation Wing after considering this cancelled cheque has never confronted the assessee regarding the receipt of ₹ 50 lacs, therefore, in absence of any other corroborative material before the AO, he is not justified in making the addition.
A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has simply made the addition merely on the basis of presumption. Although the assessee has surrendered an amount of ₹ 11 lakhs, at no point of time the assessee has agreed for addition of ₹ 50 lacs. As mentioned earlier, although complete address of the payer was available in the cancelled money receipt, the AO has never bothered to summon Shri Shashi Kant Aggarwal to find out the authenticity of the said receipt.
CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 50 lacs made by the AO on the basis of a cancelled money receipt found during the course of search conducted in the case of Micromax Group of Companies on 10th February, 2011. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1126 - ITAT CUTTACK
Revision u/s 263 - CIT directing AO for re-examination of the audited accounts and examine the genuineness of unsecured loan, Sundry Creditors/ details of payable and also Sundry Debtors shown under current assets of the balance sheet - Also re-examine the valuation of stock recorded in the books of account of the assessee which has reported to the bank - HELD THAT:- Pr.CIT has observed that there is stock statement on record which has been submitted by the assessee to the Punjab National Bank in inflated value, therefore, the difference shall be treated as unaccounted sales. In respect of other findings of the ld.Pr.CIT, the AO did not enquire in depth which ought to have been done for competing the assessment proceedings as per the provisions of I.T.Act.
Even before the proceeding u/s.263/143(3) of the Act before the AO, the assessee did not produce books of accounts. CIT should have got confirmed from Punjab National Bank as to whether the stock statement has been submitted before the bank is correct or not by making independent enquiry.
From the order of ld. Pr.CIT it is not clear that as to whether any enquiry has been done by the ld.Pr.CIT or not and it is also not clear whether there was a difference in quantitative details or only on value shown in the stock statement. In this regard, the ld. Pr.CIT is not justified for making direction to the AO for reexamination of the valuation of stock recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee reported to the bank.
We observe from the record of authorities below and order sheet the AO had asked to the assessee many times for producing the books of accounts but the assessee failed to produce at any stage before the authorities below. The ld.Pr. CIT has observed that in respect of unsecured loans sundry creditors/liabilities and sundry debtors on asset side appearing on the balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 - AO should have done enquiry for the genuineness of the current liabilities and current assets which has been observed by the ld.Pr.CIT. The AO is not only an adjudicator, he is also an investigator before coming to any conclusion with regard to the genuineness of the transactions done by the assessee, which is lack in this case.
Order of the AO in respect of unsecured loans, sundry creditors/liabilities and sundry debtors accepted by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We hereby make it clear that the direction of the ld. Pr.CIT in respect of stock differences found from the record is not required to further verification and in respect of unsecured loans, sundry creditors/liabilities and sundry debtors the AO has to follow the direction of the ld. Pr.CIT. Therefore, the ld. Pr.CIT has rightly invoked his power provided u/s.263(1) of the Act to the extent of the decision of the ld. Pr.CIT in this regard. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1125 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non issue of notice u/s 148 on correct address - Applicability of section 292 BB - plea of the assessee that notice u/s 148 was wrongly issued to the assessee, as he had duly complied AIR notice and explained the source of deposit - whether the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee or not? - HELD THAT:- As clearly held that notice has to be issued either on the address available in PAN database or address available in the income tax return and has clearly held that the AO was circumscribed and bound by the express mandate of Rule 127.
As held in this case that is the notice could not be served on the address available in the PAN data base or at the address mentioned in Income Tax Return only then the notice can be issued on the address mentioned in banking company or post office. No such attempt has been made in this case. In the present case, clearly the notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee on the address mentioned in PAN database but was straight forwarded issued at another address.
As decided in MOHD. RIZWAN PROP. M/S M.R. GARMENTS MOULVIGANJ LUCKNOW [2017 (3) TMI 1792 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] as considered the applicability of section 292 BB wherein it has been held that notice issued u/s 147/148 is a jurisdictional step and it cannot be treated to be mere irregularity curable u/s 292 BB of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1124 - ITAT MUMBAI
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the assessee is entitled for depreciation on properties which were let out, income from which is taxed under the head ‘income from house property’? - CIT(A) had disallowed the said depreciation on the ground that since the rental income derived from those properties were taxed under the head ‘income from house property’ and assessee would be entitled for statutory deduction @30% towards repairs alone and no further deduction is permissible under the head ‘ income from house property’ - HELD THAT:- This is a case where penalty has been initiated on one limb of the offence and penalty levied ultimately on a different limb of the offence. In these type of cases, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had held that when there is no satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO in the quantum assessment order and penalty initiated on one limb and ultimately levied on different limb of the assessee, then in such cases, the penalty levied deserved to be cancelled.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the recent decision in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd., vs. CIT [2020 (6) TMI 305 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the penalty levied in the instant case is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
We find that it was the assessee which has actually provided all the details in respect of value of properties which were purchased from Financial Year 1990-91 onwards and the respective written down value at the end of each year before the lower authorities. It was the very same details that were furnished by the assessee which was placed reliance by the ld. CIT(A) while levying the penalty. Hence, there cannot be any concealment of particulars of income on the part of the assessee. When all the information available for determining the income of the assessee is placed on record voluntarily by the assessee either in the return or before the authorities at the time of assessment or appellate proceedings, then there cannot be any concealment of particulars of income that can be attributed on the assessee. See RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1123 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of selling and marketing expenses paid - Commission on sale - receipt from the sale of FSI was not offered to tax, therefore, the expenses was not liable to be allowed - As argued that the commission or brokerage expenses are accrued and the liabilities towards such expenses are created as soon as the deal takes place between the assessee company and the party and accordingly the brokerage/commission is due, hence, the claim of the assessee is liable to be allowed - HELD THAT:- The assessee company has paid 2% commission on sale of FSI 53.33 crores for the year under consideration.
The commission has been booked against these transactions in the year under consideration. Since the FSI was not offered in the current year, therefore, the AO has declined the claim. It nowhere seems justifiable in view of the decision in the case of Mysore Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1978 (5) TMI 29 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in which it is held that the accepting certain specific provisions relating to amortization of initial expenses in certain cases, there is no other statutory provision for allowing revenue expenses in a phased or spread out manner.
Expenses are required to be claimed and allowed only in the year in which the expenses are incurred or the liability towards such expenses accrued. Revenue expenditure is essentially allowable in the year to which it pertains or in which it is incurred. However, to support his claim, the assessee has also relied upon the decision in the case of Calico Dyeing & Printing Works Vs. CIT [1958 (3) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein claim of the assessee was allowed in similar circumstances.
We are of the view that the declining of the claim of commission expenses is nowhere justifiable, hence, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue. The claim is hereby allowed in the relevant year. Accordingly, we allowed the claim of the assessee.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1122 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - addition made on account of @8% on the value of alleged bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Assessee had disclosed total gross profit of 3.6%. Since, assessee is engaged in the business of export of cut and polished diamonds, there is no question of any VAT portion incurred by the assessee on the purchases.
Gross profit disclosed by the assessee on the disputed purchases was 2.42%. These facts were not controverted by the revenue before us. Profit element determined @8% is on the much higher side and we deem it fit to estimate the profit @3% on the value of purchases treated as non-genuine by placing reliance on Ralf Jems Pvt. Ltd [2019 (9) TMI 1402 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1121 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Seeking implementation of the order of CESTAT - Right of Revenue to file an appeal in the HC against the order of tribunal - It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mere fact that the respondent is contemplating the filing of an appeal against Ext.P7 order cannot be a reason for not issuing directions for the implementation of Ext.P7 order - HELD THAT:- It is trite that the appellate remedy being a statutorily conferred one, no litigant can be deprived of the statutorily permitted period for availing the appellate remedy, through coercive steps that effectively curtail the said period. Just as an assessee, who suffers an order of assessment cannot be compelled to fast track an appellate remedy through coercive steps initiated against him before the expiry of the statutory period available to him for approaching the appellate authority, the respondent herein cannot be compelled to implement Ext.P7 order when the statutorily granted time for filing an appeal against the said order is not over, and it is their stated case that they are preferring such an appeal against Ext.P7 order before a division bench of this Court. The right of the petitioner to insist on the respondent's complying with Ext.P7 order will arise only in the event of the respondents not filing an appeal within the statutory period provided for the same or if an appeal, when preferred within the said time, is dismissed by the appellate authority.
Assuming that this court directs the respondent to implement Ext.P7 order of the appellate tribunal, before the statutory period for filing an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority is over, and the respondent fails to implement the directions of this court on the contention that it intends to file the statutory appeal within the time granted by the statute, this Court would not view the said conduct of the respondent as contumacious for the purposes of a contempt action at the instance of the petitioner herein - Prudence would dictate, therefore, that this court refrain from issuing peremptory directions at the said stage of the proceedings by following the well settled principles informing the exercise of writ jurisdiction, one of which is that the courts should not issue writs that are futile in nature.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1120 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Customs Brokers Licensing - Validity of N/N. 41/2018-Cus. (N.T.), dated 14-5-2018 - Examination with respect to screening and selection of candidates from "H" Card to "G" Card - permission to hold "G" Card license - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the respondent authorities have conducted the examination not with a view to upgrade the licence holder, but with a view to reject the upgradation from "H" to "G". The object of any examination is to ensure that the qualified candidate is promoted to the next post. If an examination is conducted with the object to reject candidates, then the examination itself has to be struck down. In this case, the respondent had no right to conduct any oral examination. It is not provided in the Rules. The Rules stipulate that written examination alone must be conducted.
Except merely stating that only two candidates passed in the oral examination, no other specific details have been given in the counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit has to be rejected - The conducting of the examination on 30-1-2019 and the Public Notice No. 1 of 2019, wherein both the written examination and the oral examination were stipulated, has to be struck down and accordingly struck down. A direction is issued to the respondent, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, since he has passed the written examination, to appoint him as "G" card licence holder on or before 31-3-2020, if he is otherwise eligible.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1119 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH
Approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation - Section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Compromise, Arrangement and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 and the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Upon considering the approval accorded by the members and creditors of the petitioner Companies to the proposed Scheme, and the affidavit by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs reply submitted by the Transferee Company and the report of the Official Liquidator and, there appears to be no impediment in sanctioning the present Scheme. Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme under Section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner shall however remain to bound to comply with the statutory requirements in accordance with the law.
The scheme is hereby granted to the scheme under section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1118 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- From the material on record, the Scheme of Amalgamation appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law and is not contrary to public policy - Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, the Company Scheme Petitions are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c) of Company Scheme Petition No. 4003 of 2019 and prayer clauses (a) to (c) of Company Scheme Petition No. 3946 of 2019.
The Scheme is sanctioned and Appointed date is fixed as 1st April, 2018.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1117 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI
Direction to Appellant Bank to release of the margin money amount - Respondent submits that Performance Bank Guarantee is not included in the definition of ‘security interest’ for the benefit of the beneficiary of such Performance Bank Guarantee - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, ₹ 51,27,591/- was the margin money, while was deposited by the Corporate Debtor to secure Bank Guarantee in favour of M/s Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited for an amount of ₹ 4,01,94,954/-. The said Bank Guarantee was invoked during the moratorium period, i.e. on 27th December 2018. Given Section 14(3) of the I&B Code, 2016 invocation of the said guarantee could not be stopped by the Bank.
The ‘Security Interest’ does not include the ‘Performance Bank Guarantee’. The Performance Bank Guarantee is not covered by Section 14 of the Code - It is pertinent to mention that the ‘margin money’ is not a security as has been argued by the Respondent and does not require any registration of charge. Only the assets gave by the Company as securities are required to be registered under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013.
In this case, Bank Guarantee was invoked on 27th December 2018 by the beneficiary M/s Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited, and the margin money amount was used towards the payment of the Bank Guarantee. Once this margin money was used to honour the bank guarantee, nothing remained with the Bank, and as such, the Respondent Resolution Professional cannot demand that amount - The Resolution Professional/IRP is only entitled to those payments to which the Corporate Debtor is entitled if no orders of Moratorium would have been passed under Section 14 of the Code. The Corporate Debtor had no right to claim the margin money after the invocation of Bank Guarantee.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1116 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLAT TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor did not clear the dues - existence of dispute or dues - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor could not invoke confidence of the Adjudicating Authority for initiating such stringent action as one under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly referred the notice under Section 8 of I & B Code (copy of which is at Page 43 Annexure A/13) to be not in Format.
Clearly, the Addresses do not match and service of Notice under Section 8 on Corporate Debtor cannot be accepted. The Learned Counsel is relying only on the Postal Cash Receipts which are at Page 44 which relate to booking of the document with the Postal Authorities. The Respondent did not appear or did not contest. That would not be material looking to the fact that it is burden on the Operational Creditor to make out a case for admitting an Application under Section 9 when the address of the Section 8 notice does not match with the registered address mentioned in Application under Section 9, it cannot be said that the burden on the Operational Creditor has been discharged - Even if such stand was not taken, we cannot close our eyes to what is obvious from the record. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Proceedings are serious mattes and we cannot simply admit Application under Section 9 if we are not satisfied with compliance of requirements of law.
We are also not convinced that the Application under Section 9 is required to be admitted - Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1115 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH
Early hearing of application - Auction - section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The applicant has paid the entire sale consideration in respect of both the properties in the account of certificate holder banks on 17th September, 2019. The DRT proceedings against CD were initiated by a consortium of Banks who are the members of the CoC in the case in hand. So no doubt keeping the money in their hand after setting aside the sale is not proper and just.
An application of this nature wherein a claim is raised not against the CD or against the properties now held by the CD but is against certificate holder banks who are the members of CoC is not maintainable. It is an inter-se claim in between certificate holder banks who received the consideration and the auction purchaser - there are force in the said submission on the side of the applicant/auction purchaser, especially wherein the lead bank representing the CoC showed its readiness to refund the amount.
The certificate holder of the bank who are members of CoC are directed to keep the money paid by the applicant with accrued interest @ applicable to the Banks, till the date of refund to the applicant preferably with in two weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the bank. If such an order is not issued it would work much hardship, economical loss and injustice to the applicant who had purchased the property higher than the upset price notified by the Banks - application disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1114 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt ad dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor, has admitted its liability to repay the debt amount and is willing to pay the same. However, it sought for additional time for clearing the financial dues of the Petitioner - On perusal of the records, there is no doubt that there is an admitted debt and a default as per the agreed terms between the two parties. The Petitioner admits that the present loan was renewed as the Corporate Debtor had been repaying the earlier debts. Thus there is a running account between the two and the Corporate Debtor has given an undertaking that it has made arrangements for paying the debt and only requires some more time to settle the debt.
The Corporate Debtor's plea that it be given some more time to repay the debt needs to be accepted, and the Respondent/Corporate Debtor be directed to settle the debt at the earliest in consultation with the Petitioner/Financial Creditor - Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1113 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is settled position of law that provisions of Code cannot be invoked for recovery of outstanding alleged amount(s) - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS KIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] has inter alia, held that IBC, 2016 is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum.
Since the Respondent has already drawn six cheques for total amount of ₹ 6,69,362/-(which is total principal amount claimed in the Petition), and undertakes to honor those cheques whenever presented for realization, we are inclined to dispose of the instant Company Petition with directions. The Petitioner cannot claim interest due to circumstances.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1112 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU BENCH
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 debt and default in question are not in dispute and on the other hand, the Corporate Debtor has also accepted the debt, and the Respondent is prima facie found to be insolvent. The instant application is filed strictly in accordance with the extant provisions of the Code, and debt and default established and also suggested a qualified Resolution Professional namely Shri Surender Devasani, with Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00775/2017-2018/11348, who also filed written Consent in Form-2 on 26.08.2019, by inter alia declaring that no disciplinary proceedings pending against him with the Board or the Indian Institute of Insolvency. Therefore, he is provisionally eligible to be appointed as IRP.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (9) TMI 1111 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of Objections - applicant is representing 1500 home buyers of real estate projects, but whereas RP has categorically mentioned that only 448 home buyers voted against the plan - HELD THAT:- This objector has no locus to raise such objections without following the procedure, hence these objections have been rejected without going into the merits of the objections.
As to the request made by the Counsel, we express our helplessness to consider the plea of the counsel because whenever any proceedings is initiated or any reply is filed, it shall be filed in accordance with the Law. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also categorically mentioned giving liberty to Wishtown Home Buyers Welfare Society that the said entity is at liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with the law - The Counsel Mr. Lahot has stated that he would supply the list of the home buyers. However, list has not even been mentioned in these objections, the question of granting any permission to provide list after passing this order will not arise.
Objections rejected.
............
|
