|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1454 Records
-
2021 (3) TMI 1254 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Smuggling - Gold - foreign origin goods - confiscation - penalty - case of Revenue is that the said impugned order has to be stayed since there is ample evidence to prove that the respondent was in possession of smuggled gold - HELD THAT:- No prima facie case made out by petitioner so as to grant stay during pendency of this appeal. If the prayer in the stay application is allowed it would be as granting the appeal itself which cannot be done at this preliminary hearing of stay application.
The application for stay is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1253 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Settlement commission abolishment - seeking relief for declaring that the proposed amendment in the Finance Bill 2021 regarding amendment in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where under the Income Tax Settlement Commission is proposed to be abolished w.e.f. 01.02.2021, cannot be acted upon without being notified in the official gazette and without receiving the Presidential assent - HELD THAT:- Writ petitions were preferred with an apprehension that applications of the petitioners would not be accepted by the Settlement Commission in view of the proposed amendment in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, as per the statement made in the supplementary affidavit, applications of the petitioners have been accepted and requisite fees has been deposited through challan, copy of which are enclosed to the supplementary affidavit. In these circumstances, petitioners’ grievance, though raised prematurely before this Court, appears to have been redressed. Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with powers and procedure of Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission may consider it in accordance with law.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1252 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH
Seeking approval of the Resolution Plan - Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- In K. SASHIDHAR VERSUS INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 1043 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan by requisite percent of voting share, then as per section 30(6) of the Code, it is imperative for the Resolution Professional to submit the same to the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). On receipt of such a proposal, the Adjudicating Authority is required to satisfy itself that the Resolution Plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements specified in Section 30(2).
The instant Resolution Plan meets the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39(4) of the Regulations. The Resolution Plan is not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code and is in accordance with law. The Resolution Plan is feasible and viable. There are no workers claims. Adequate provision is provided for future claims of Operational Creditors if any the by Resolution Applicant. Resolution Applicant agreed to pay the full CIRP cost and also future costs if any as certified by the Resolution Professional and CoC. The Resolution Applicant is making full payments to Financial Creditors.
The Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Leadadroit Services Pvt. Ltd. is hereby approved - Application allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1251 - ITAT JAIPUR
Revision u/s 263 - addition as made u/s 54F - HELD THAT:- AO has either ignored the said proviso or the deduction so allowed is in violation of the said provision to section 54F of the Act and therefore, the order so passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous due to ignorance or incorrect application of law. All the relevant facts in respect of both the residential houses have been considered and provisions of law have been rightly applied by the AO and deduction u/s 54F has been allowed to the extent of assessee’s share in respect of one residential house. The 'prejudice' that is contemplated under section 263 is the prejudice to the Income Tax administration as a whole. The revision has to be done for the purpose of setting right distortions and prejudices caused to the Revenue in the above context. The fundamental principles which emerge from the several cases regarding the powers of the CIT u/s 263.
AO had made full and complete enquiries with regard to claim of deduction raised by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act as we have discussed in detail mentioning the specific paras in the order of the assessment, we are of the view that the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act by holding that the AO had not applied correct provisions of law while finalizing the assessment indicating lack of enquiries or verification is thus not sustainable in law and therefore, we quash the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed U/s 263 - Appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
2021 (3) TMI 1250 - ITAT SURAT
Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- As gone through the request of the assessee to obtain the benefit of ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ and noted that assessee has prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. Revenue did not have any objection if the said appeal is withdrawn by the assessee. Consequently, we treat this appeal as withdrawn.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1249 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deletion of parties to the present Suit, under the Consent Terms - HELD THAT:- The Consent Terms dated 11th March 2021 are taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. The undertakings, if any, in the Consent Terms are accepted as the undertakings given to this Court. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are deleted as party defendants to the Suit as recorded in paragraph 8 of the Consent Terms.
The Suit is decreed in terms of the Consent Terms. Drawning up of the decree is expedited. No order as to costs. Refund of the Court fees, if any, as per Rules - Suit is disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1248 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deduction u/s 80IC - interest income from fixed deposit - According to the assessee, even if the interest income from Fixed Deposit does not qualify for the deduction u/s 80IC, still it being a business receipt should be given the benefit of netting - HELD THAT:- We note that in the revenue appeal for the same assessment year i.e. AY 2014-15 [2020 (3) TMI 1362 - ITAT KOLKATA] we have confirmed the action of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of claim of the assessee in respect of interest income as not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC.
Netting of interest income was not before us, because the revenue appeal came up without this assessee’s cross-appeal. And since this issue has come to our notice only in this appeal, in the interest of justice and fair play and as per settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that the net interest should only be brought to tax. Needless to say, the assessee in this case has claimed to have made the FDs for the purpose of procuring bank guarantee which was a condition precedent for procurement of raw material from M/s SAIL. And therefore, according to us, the interest income even if it does not qualify for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act being not having first degree nexus, still the nature of the receipt since being business in nature and not from other sources [refer CIT vs. Nirma Ltd.[2014 (10) TMI 388 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] needs to be treated as business receipt, if the facts are correct, which may be verified by the CIT(A), since we have restored certain issues back to him, while adjudicating the Revenue Appeal for this assessment year.
And if the contention of the assessee is found to be correct, then netting should be allowed to their interest receipt as held by the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 388 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Therefore we restore this issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1247 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor issued a legal notice dated 26.10.2019 to the Operational Creditor. In the said notice, the Corporate Debtor has stated that as per the terms of understandings between the beth parties, the licence numbers supra had been transferred / sold and the entire payment of ₹ 1,07,03,939/- was credited into the account of one of the directors of the Operational Creditor who was liaising with the Corporate Debtor. There also appears to be various meetings and discussions between the Applicant and the Respondent herein.
Since there is pre-existing dispute between the parties prior to filing this application, this application is not admitted by this Adjudicating Authority. From the legal notice, reply notice and the oral submissions made by the Counsel for the Applicant, it is clear that there is pre-existing dispute between the parties. The details of transactions cannot be concluded in a summary proceedings since there is also fraudulent criminal allegations involved in these transactions.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1246 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Personal Guarantor/Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has clearly brought out in its application annexed with documents that the Personal guarantor/Debtor has committed default in making repayment of the loan along with the interest to the Applicant, for which he has given the personal guarantee to the Applicant on behalf of the Corporate Debtor.
The application is admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1245 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Royalty receipts - treatment of income from sale of off-the-shelf software - India- Ireland DTAA - whether the payments made to non-resident software suppliers is "royalty" and hence TDS u/s.195 was required to be deducted on those payments or not? - HELD THAT:- Issue involved in this appeal has been put to rest in view of the decision rendered in ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] and the issue involved in this appeal has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1244 - ITAT CHENNAI
Long term capital gain - Nature of land sold - profit derived from sale of agricultural land is taxable or not? - HELD THAT:- Whether profit derived from sale of agricultural land is taxable or not is essential question of fact, which needs to be ascertained on the basis of evidences filed by the assessee to prove that land was an agricultural land and the same was used for agricultural purpose - finding of fact recorded by the authorities below indicate that the assessee has not filed any evidence to prove that land was used for agricultural purpose but contention of the assessee is that the land in question was agricultural land and it was used for agricultural purpose. The assessee further claimed that if opportunity is given, he is ready to produce necessary evidence to prove his claim. Therefore, considering the arguments of both sides, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be set aside to the file of the AO to ascertain the fact with regard to nature of the land when it was sold, to decide the taxability of profit derived from sale of land.
Appeal is set aside to the file of the AO and we direct him to verify the issue in light of evidences filed by the assessee to prove that land in question is agricultural land and the same is used for agricultural purpose - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1243 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification u/s 254 - mistakes in the order and also the failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the some judicial pronouncements - HELD THAT:- We recall the order that was passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee [2021 (8) TMI 1030 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the limited purpose of considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements which were relied upon by the assessee's counsel in the course of hearing of the appeal but had inadvertently remained omitted to be considered while passing the order viz. (i) CIT Vs. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and (ii) Manek lal Agarwal Vs DCIT [2017 (8) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT]. The registry is accordingly directed to fix the matter on 23.04.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1242 - SUPREME COURT
Costs, charges, expenses and professional fees payable to a registered valuer appointed after the initiation of the CIRP under the IBC - submission of the Appellant is that neither the NCLT nor the NCLAT have applied their mind to the professional charges payable to him in his capacity as a registered valuer - HELD THAT:- The NCLT in its order dated 29 June 2020, while dismissing the application of the Appellant for the payment of fees, observed that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India is the competent authority to deal with allegations against the RP relating to their failure to discharge statutory duties (paragraph 7). Section 217 of the IBC empowers a person aggrieved by the functioning of an RP to file a complaint to the IBBI. If the IBBI believes on the receipt of the complaint that any RP has contravened the provisions of IBC, or the rules, Regulations or directions issued by the IBBI, it can, Under Section 218 of the IBC, direct an inspection or investigation. Under Section 220 of the IBC, IBBI can constitute a disciplinary committee to consider the report submitted by the investigating authority. If the disciplinary committee is satisfied that sufficient cause exists, it can impose a penalty.
The availability of a grievance redressal mechanism under the IBC against an insolvency professional does not divest the NCLT of its jurisdiction Under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to consider the amount payable to the Appellant. In any event, the purpose of such a grievance redressal mechanism is to penalize errant conduct of the RP and not to determine the claims of other professionals which form part of the CIRP costs.
The proceedings shall accordingly stand remitted back to the NCLT for determining the claim of the Appellant for the payment of the professional charges as a registered Valuer appointed by the RP in pursuance of the initiation of the CIRP - Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1241 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
Appointment of IRP of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The Respondent in the present Appeal is the Corporate Debtor. In the set of facts which we have, it is not necessary for us to call the Corporate Debtor and hear the Corporate Debtor on the issue. As such it appears to us to be in the ends of Justice that we should pass orders in this Appeal giving necessary directions to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.
Appeal is disposed off with directions to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to urgently pass whatever orders the Adjudicating Authority wants to pass with regard to appointment of IRP in place of Mr. Arun Jain who it is stated has conveyed unwillingness to take up the assignment
-
2021 (3) TMI 1240 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the order of the NCLT will have any bearing on the requisite majority required to pass a Resolution Plan under the provisions of Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016? - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Plan has been approved by 100% of the voting share of the Committee of Creditors, a fact highlighted by Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
Since the issue has been raised during the course of the submissions, we permit the appellant, in terms as requested before the Court, to file an affidavit disclosing the order of the NCLT and the impact, if any, on the majority required for passing a Resolution Plan. This shall be done on or before 13 March 2021 - List the Civil Appeal on 18 March 2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1239 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking withdrawal of the provisional attachment order - HELD THAT:- The order in original is appeallable before Commissioner (Appeals) subject to payment of 10% of the demand. Since petitioner has a statutory right of filing appeal against the order in original, to make such right meaningful, we direct that provisional attachment of the aforesaid bank account of the petitioner shall be withdrawn to the extent of 10% of the credited amount as on today with the remaining amount of 90% continuing under debit freeze, which shall be subject to outcome of the appeal or such order that may be passed by the appellate authority.
Stand over to 20th April, 2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cancellation of auction conducted - auction was conducted to recover the arrears of tax for the period between 1989-1990 - auction was sought to be cancelled for not having followed the procedure - HELD THAT:- The land in question which was auctioned by the Commercial Tax Department. However, the said land did not belong to the 3 rd respondent/Spinning Mill which is under liquidation and therefore for the arrears of Commercial Taxes, The Commercial Tax Department could not have auctioned the immovable property of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The 3 rd respondent/Spinning Mill was merely a permissive user of the land - Therefore, the entire exercise carried out by the Commercial Tax Department in respect of property belonging to the Government represented by the District Revenue Officer, Vellore District itself was without any basis. In any event, the auction that was conducted on 06.12.2006 has been cancelled by the territorial Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department. The amount that was paid by the petitioner was also sought to be refunded back. The petitioner however declined to receive the amounts hoping that the petitioner would succeed in the writ proceedings which have been initiated since 2007.
Since the amount of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- at the time of bid from the petitioner has not been refunded back to the petitioner, the Commercial Tax Department is directed to refund the said amount together with interest accrued thereon at the prevailing bank rates from time to time. The petitioner shall forward the account details to which the amounts has to be refunded back within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1237 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Classification of goods - API supari - chikni supari - unflavoured supari - and flavoured supari - classifiable under chapter 8(08029000) of the customs tariff or are more appropriately classifiable under chapter 21, and more specifically under sub-heading 2106 90 30? - applicability of N/N. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- Recognizing the legal construct and specific provisions of section 28-J(1), it is obvious to me that the task cannot be reduced to pass the advance ruling based on the previous ruling of AAR cited by the applicant.
All the five products placed before me for consideration, i.e., API supari, chikni supari, unflavoured supari, flavoured supari, and boiled supari merit classification under chapter 8 of the customs tariff, and more precisely, under the heading 0802, and not under sub-heading 2106 90 30, as contended - the benefit of the exemption contained at Sr. No. 103 of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017 would not be available to the products, namely, API supari, chikni supari, unflavoured supari, flavoured supari, and boiled supari.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - allegation is that the petitioner's company had failed to submit returns and after having collected tax from its customer the company did not remit the tax to the Government - offence punishable under Section 132(1) (d) of The Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submited that already a sum of ₹ 5 crore had been paid as input tax, it was disputed by the respondent.
In order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce account and tax payment particulars to the respondent, this court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner till 08.04.2021 on certain conditions imposed.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1235 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking to withdraw the bail granted - breach in adhering to the time line indicated by the order of this Court for deposit - monetization of the assets of Unitech Limited under the auspices of the Court appointed Committee - non-compliance with the direction to deposit the amount required - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the accused themselves had been moving this Court in the interim for bail on medical grounds. Though, this Court is seized of the entire dispute pertaining to the defaults by Unitech Limited and a Board of Management appointed by the Union of India has been placed in charge, several other steps have been taken including conducting a forensic audit and directing the agencies of the Union of India to investigate into all aspects of the matter. In this backdrop, it would be unacceptable for the accused, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court to seek the liberty of the Delhi High Court and then move the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and obtain an order of bail. The finding of the Magistrate to the effect that the accused have already deposited more than ₹ 750 crores “as directed by the Supreme Court” with its Registry is plainly incorrect and a deviation from the findings specifically recorded in the order dated 30 October 2017.
An attempt has been made to overreach the process of this Court and an order of bail has been sought and obtained, to defeat the control which is being exercised by this Court.
Pending the return of notice, the accused shall on or before 22 March 2021 surrender to the Tihar Jail. The order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts dated 13 January 2021 is stayed pending further orders. The accused shall file their affidavits within a period of one week from today - List the Special Leave Petitions on 7 April 2021.
............
|
