|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1471 Records
-
2021 (3) TMI 1271
Abolishment of Income Tax Settlement Commission - Application for settlement of cases rejected - applications are not being accepted by the Settlement Commissioner just on account of presentation of the Finance Bill, 2021 proposing an amendment to Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, which could abolish the Income Tax Settlement Commission once the Act comes into force - HELD THAT:- It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that no such attempt to file such application before the Settlement Commissioner has been made by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would make such an effort and file an affidavit to that effect by Monday.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1270
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- During the pendency, the Resolution Applicant has withdrawn his resolution plan and the application for extension has been frustrated. Hence, no resolution has been passed by COC and the present application has been filed under Section 33(1)(a) on 21.08.2020 and the essential ingredients of the same stand satisfied.
In view of the satisfaction of the conditions provided under Section 33(1)(a) of the Code, the corporate debtor Best Foods Limited is directed to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter III of the Code - Application allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1269
Search case in terms of VsVs Act - petitioner challenging the subsequent Form-3 issued by the respondent/revenue after a full and final settlement of disputed taxes in Form-5 - petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that after a certificate in Form (5) was issued by the designated authority on 28.12.2020 indicating therein that there has been a full and final settlement qua disputed tax, the designated authority has gone on to issue, once again, Form (3) which is dated 21.01.2021 thereby seeking to treat its case as a search case - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the deadline prescribed stands extended till 30.04.2021. We may also indicate that in the impugned form, i.e., Form (3), referred to hereinabove, the following remark is incorporated: “This case is treated as a Search case in terms of VsVs Act/Rules 2020 and the CBDT circular No.21/2020 and the amount payable has been re-calculated accordingly. As such this is the revised Form 3 has been issued. The original Form 3 issued on 23.12.2020 and the Form 5 issued on 28.12.2020 may be treated as cancelled/withdrawn.
Petitioner, says that the designated authority was rendered functus officio after Form (5) was issued on 28.12.2020 and therefore, the impugned communication is not sustainable in law. Prima facie, to our minds, the submission made by Mr. Jain appears to be correct.
Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Puneet Rai, who appears on advance notice, accepts service on behalf of the respondents.Mr. Rai seeks and is granted two weeks to file a counter-affidavit. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.There shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned Form 3 dated 21.01.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1268
Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme') - HELD THAT:- We are inclined to treat the instant appeal of the assessee as withdrawn relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Keyaram Hotels P. Ltd [2020 (11) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - we hereby dismiss the instant appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 as withdrawn. However, we also make it clear that, if the assessee’s case is not accepted in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme by the Revenue for whatsoever may be reason on a subsequent date, then the assessee shall be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal within the time limit prescribed under the Act to reinstate its appeal. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1267
Rectification of mistake - Validity of the reference made by the AO for special audit as per the provisions of section 142(2A) - HELD THAT:- We do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue since the adjudication of the reference to special audit by the ITAT has been held to be well within its jurisdiction in the case of Consulting Engineering Services Private Limited Vs. ITAT & Another [2017 (9) TMI 1928 - DELHI HIGH COURT], that too after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahara India[2008 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, with regard to the same, there is no mistake in the order of the ITAT. Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are, dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1266
Jurisdiction - power to entertain the complaint as the subject project did not require registration in terms of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - requirement to register the Phase of its project "Lodha Dioro" upto 40th floors - part occupancy certificate in respect thereof having been obtained/issued by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) prior to 1st August 2017 - Authority's sphere of powers to pass the necessary orders and/or directions regarding the registration of the project in terms of Section 3 read with Section 31 of the Act.
HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is maintainable. It has been observed in the decision of the Supreme Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ORS. [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that where the order or proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction, Writ Petition is maintainable inspite of an alternate statutory remedy. This particularly where the writ is filed showing that the authority had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.
Considering these decisions as well as the issues that arise in this Petition, particularly where it has been alleged that the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly and prematurely exercised its jurisdiction, which exercise of jurisdiction is in derogation to orders passed by the Authority on this issue, there is no substance in the challenge to the maintainability of this Petition and in fact this Petition is very much maintainable.
From the plain language of Section 3(1) it is clear that registration must be in respect of any Real Estate Project or part of it. The window of three months in the first proviso of Section (3) (1) makes it clear that in so far as ongoing projects are concerned, the promoter has been given the said window of three months within which he can apply for registration of the said ongoing project. The ongoing project would be a Real Estate Project and/or a phase of the project which would require registration during the three months window after the commencement of Section 3 of the Act i.e. 1st May 2017. Section 3(2) (b) would apply only to completed projects that have received the completion certificate before the commencement of the Act and thus entitled to exemption from registration. Thus there is a clear distinction made between the projects 'that are ongoing projects' and 'projects which have received completion certificate before commencement of the Act' - the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is submitted that the scope of the proviso to Section 3 and Section 3(2)(b) can never be the same or overlapping and that would amount to or attributing surplusage to legislature which could never have been the intention.
The Respondents/Complainants inspite of having failed in its Writ Petition seeking revocation of part occupancy certificate granted to the Petitioners and directions from this Court against the Authority to register the project of the Petitioners under the Act, had filed Second Complaint before the Adjudicating Officer. This filing had been done by apparently misusing the RERA registration number of a different phase of the another project - The provision under the Act i.e. Section 59 which provides that non-registration of a real estate project is an offence & punishable therein can only apply to projects which although requiring registration have not been registered in contravention of Section 3 of the Act.
The first issue viz. whether the Adjudicating Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the subject project did not require registration in terms of Section (3) of the Act, in the affirmative.
Whether the procedure and scheme of the Act warrant that it is solely within the Authority's sphere of powers to pass necessary orders and directions pertaining to aspects of registration in terms of Section 3 read with Section 31 of the Act? - HELD THAT:- The Authority is established under Section 20 of the Act and derives its powers from Section 31 and its functions are contained in Section 34 of the Act. It has been observed in Sections 34(1) of the Act that the Authority has been entrusted with the function to register and regulate the Real Estate Projects - The power to adjudicate has been provided for under Section 71 of the Act. It is provided under that Section that for the purpose of adjudging the compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, the Authority shall appoint in consultation with the Government one or more judicial officers as deemed necessary which is or has been a District Judge to be an Adjudicating Officer for holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner and after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the scope of the powers of the Adjudicating Officer is restricted to adjudication of compensation and only in respect of violation of Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 - It is is thus clear from the scheme of the Act that the Authority which grants registration under the Act is different from the Adjudicating Authority.
The Adjudicating Officer had no jurisdiction to determine the registration of the project or phase thereof under Section 3(1) of the Act. This was solely within the sphere of powers of the Authority to pass the necessary orders and directions pertaining to aspects of registration of the project or part thereof in terms of Section 3 read with Section 31 of the Act, being one of its functions under Section 34 of the Act.
Both the issues raised in the Petition are thus decided in the affirmative - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1265
Validity of re-computation of sales tax payable - assessment years (AYs) starting from 1999-2000 till 2004-05 - time limitation - levy of interest - HELD THAT:- There was no other basis for accepting the plea of the assessee for the AYs in question. That very basis of the orders passed by this Court has been rendered non-existent by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Auto Ltd. [2016 (11) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] setting aside the order dated 5th January, 2007 of this Court. The aforementioned declaration of the law by the Supreme Court is binding on all the authorities in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution - Consequently, the impugned orders that have been passed, re-computing the tax payable to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court, which the authorities were bound to do, cannot be termed illegal.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered on 28th October, 2016, the re-computation orders having passed not very long thereafter, in December 2017, and in the absence of any specific period of limitation prescribed for re-computation, it cannot be said that the said orders are time barred.
Levy of interest - HELD THAT:- Since the legal position got clarified by the Supreme Court only on 28th October 2016, the Petitioner is justified in contending, on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. State of Haryana, [2000 (2) TMI 735 - SUPREME COURT], that such interest is payable only for the period subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court and not prior thereto - the impugned demand notices are modified only to the extent that the interest on the differential tax amount will be payable by the Petitioner for the period subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court i.e. 28th October 2016, till the date of payment.
The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Opposite Party No.1) will now issue fresh orders re-computing the amount payable on the basis of the modification not later than 19th April, 2021 - petition disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1264
Disallowance @20% of agriculture income by treating the same as unexplained cash credit - only objection of the AO is that the assessee is having a farmhouse and income was received from the natural activity which is not agricultural activity as per the provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- AO has merely acted on the basis of surmises and conjuncture in estimating 20% of the total receipt as unexplained cash credit without carrying out any further verification from the buyer/purchasers of these agricultural products/produce.
Both of the authorities have failed to discharge their duties properly as none of the parties have brought any substantial material on record to prove that assessee has incurred expenses over and above what has been stated by the assessee. AO has made a ground that some income received by the assessee was in the nature of non-agriculture and substantial too in nature, whereas ld. CIT(A) has gone on a different footing that assessee has incurred expenses to earn the said income which seems to be understated - we are not in a position to sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A) as the same appeared to be a guess work to sustain the addition made by the AO and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of first appellate authority and direct the AO to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1263
Writ Petition seeks mandamus to have infrastructural facility in place for disposal of appeal preferred by the Petitioner on jurisdictional issue - HELD THAT:- In the interregnum, it appears that assessment proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice about which jurisdictional issue has been raised, have been proceeded with. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that if those are decided, the appeal would be rendered redundant.
It appears to be expedient if the Appellate Authority decides the pending appeal at an early date.
Appellate Authority – Respondent No.2 to dispose of pending appeal before it within a period of four weeks from today. The assessment proceedings to go on. The result therein would be subject to decision of Respondent No.2.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1262
TP Adjustment - International transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises - assessee has restricted his arguments in respect of entity level adjustments made by the Ld. TPO - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is a well settled principle of law by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Firestone International Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 1408 - SC ORDER] affirmed to the findings of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, where the Hon'ble High Court held that TP adjustments cannot be made beyond the transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises.
ITAT, Chennai in the case of Prodapt Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 1919 - ITAT CHENNAI] has considered an identical issue and held that transfer pricing adjustment has to be made only in respect of transactions of the assessee being a tested party, with associated enterprises after comparing the transactions made by similarly placed company in uncontrolled transactions with non associated enterprises.
Thus adjustment can be made only in respect of transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises, but not to a third party transactions at entity level - TPO as well as DRP has erred in making TP adjustment at entity level - we direct the Ld. TPO to restrict TP adjustment in respect of international transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises.
Working capital adjustment - HELD THAT:- TPO needs to compute working capital adjustment having regard to the margins of the comparables after considering the working capital levels. But, fact remains that the details with regard to working capital adjustment of comparables is not placed before us. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter needs to go back to the file of Ld. TPO to re-consider the working capital adjustment in light of the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 [2021 (3) TMI 585 - ITAT CHENNAI].
-
2021 (3) TMI 1261
Seeking acceptance of claim by RP - claim so submitted was not within the stipulated time - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to mention herein that the Resolution Plan has already been received by the CoC as apprised by the RP and it is at the final stage of approval of the CoC on or before 08.03.2021 (as per RP). At this belated stage, if such types of applications are allowed, the Resolution Plans already received by the CoC from the prospective Resolution Applicants, may get failed, as those are filed on the basis of Information Utility (IU).The prospective Resolution Applicants submitted their Resolution Plan on the basis of their financial capacity and availability of funds. There is every likelihood that if the claims of the different creditors are being accepted in a phase manner, that too after the stipulated time so provided for submitting claims, in that event, the Resolution Plans can never get materialized, more so, when CIRP is to be completed in a time bound manner - Further, if the Resolution Applicants have infused money or have taken financial assistance from other sources, in that event, they will have to approach for enhancement of the loan/infusion of money, which practically takes a longer time and by the time they would complete all these processes, the period of CIRP will be over.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, [2018 (10) TMI 312 - SUPREME COURT] unequivocally held that " the entire time period within which the CIRP ought to be completed is strictly mandatory in nature and cannot be extended. It relied on the primary objective of the Code, which is to ensure a timely resolution process for a CD and principles of statutory interpretation to hold that the literal language of section 12 mandates strict adherence to the time frame it lays down. To enable this adherence to the outer time limit provided in the Code, the court also held that the model timeline provided in Regulation 40A of the CIRP Regulations should be followed "as closely as possible" - in the instant matter, the RP allowed not only further 90 days but has also allowed another 68 days of lockdown period so as to facilitate all the creditors to file their claims.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1260
Appointment of Resolution Professional - Initiation of personal insolvency against the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor by Resolution Professional - Section 95 of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- The Bench, after hearing the Petitioner, notes that the Corporate Guarantor has not filed any submissions and on the date of hearing there was no representation from the side of the Respondent, i.e., the Personal Guarantor.
Based on the submissions made by the Applicant and the documents produced and placed on record before this Bench, the Bench has no doubt in its mind that there is a ‘default’ on the part of the Personal Guarantor by not fulfilling the debt owed to the Corporate Debtor, i.e., Pratibha Industries Limited as per the Deed of Guarantee entered between the parties through the Deed of Guarantee dated 10.03.2017 - This Bench “Allows” the Application filed by Mr. Ram Ratan Kanungo, Insolvency Resolution Professional on behalf of State Bank of India, the Financial Creditor, under Section 95 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 7 of the IBC Rules 2019 against Mr. Ravi Ajit Kulkarni, the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Pratibha Industries Limited in CP No. 1189/2020. The Interim Moratorium as per Section 96(1) of the Code has commenced from the date of filing of Application by the Financial Creditor, i.e.,25.01.2021.
The Bench notes that the appointment of Resolution Professional under Section 97 of the Code is critical and essential not only for the Applicant but also to safeguard the assets of the Personal Guarantor in terms of the provisions of the Code. Since the present Petition has been filed through the Resolution Professional, Mr. Ram Ratan Kanoongo, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00070/2017-18/10156, this Bench confirms the appointment of the Resolution Professional in the matter.
In this matter, the Resolution Professional, Shri Ram Ratan Kanoongo, shall exercise all the powers as enumerated under Section 99 of the Code read with Rules made there under - List the matter for further proceedings in the case on 15.04.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1259
Appointment of Resolution Professional - Initiation of personal insolvency against the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor by Resolution Professional - Section 95 of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- The Bench, after hearing the Petitioner, notes that the Corporate Guarantor has not filed any submissions and on the date of hearing there was no representation from the side of the Respondent, i.e., the Personal Guarantor.
Based on the submissions made by the Applicant and the documents produced and placed on record before this Bench, the Bench has no doubt in its mind that there is a ‘default’ on the part of the Personal Guarantor by not fulfilling the debt owed to the Corporate Debtor, i.e., Pratibha Industries Limited as per the Deed of Guarantee entered between the parties through the Deed of Guarantee dated 10.03.2017 - This Bench “Allows” the Application filed by Mr. Ram Ratan Kanungo, Insolvency Resolution Professional on behalf of State Bank of India, the Financial Creditor, under Section 95 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 7 of the IBC Rules 2019 against Mr. Ravi Ajit Kulkarni, the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Pratibha Industries Limited in CP No. 1192/2020. The Interim Moratorium as per Section 96(1) of the Code has commenced from the date of filing of Application by the Financial Creditor, i.e.,25.01.2021.
The Bench notes that the appointment of Resolution Professional under Section 97 of the Code is critical and essential not only for the Applicant but also to safeguard the assets of the Personal Guarantor in terms of the provisions of the Code. Since the present Petition has been filed through the Resolution Professional, Mr. Ram Ratan Kanoongo, bearing Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00070/2017-18/10156, this Bench confirms the appointment of the Resolution Professional in the matter.
In this matter, the Resolution Professional, Shri Ram Ratan Kanoongo, shall exercise all the powers as enumerated under Section 99 of the Code read with Rules made there under - List the matter for further proceedings in the case on 15.04.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1258
Initiation of action in the matter of acquisition of shares and amalgamation of companies - offences under Sections 447, 448 and 449 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The facts reflected in the record reveal that the genesis of the present PIL is the scheme of amalgamation which was approved by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2015 in Company Petition No.182/2014 [2015 (3) TMI 1399 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and this Court has approved the scheme of merger in respect of three companies namely M/s. Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, M/s. Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited and M/s. Napean Trading and Investment Company Private limited. The present appellant who does not have any interest in the aforesaid companies and having an oblique idea and motive, has taken the large number of steps to challenge the scheme of amalgamation through various writs.
The genesis of the present writ appeal is the merger of three companies and the very same subject matter was questioned in the PIL, which has been withdrawn unconditionally. The order passed by the Division Bench has not been challenged before any Court or any forum. Undisputedly, the legal effect and consequence of the unconditional withdrawal of the said PIL is to bar and prohibit all subsequent proceedings before any Court or Tribunal, raising the same contentions - This Court really fails to understand as to how in case of merger of three private companies, the funds of Government of India have been siphoned. On the contrary, on account of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi, the Central Government has passed an order dated 10.11.2017 and the same makes it very clear that the Government of India was not having any stake in the three amalgamating companies.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law. The appellant has been unsuccessful on almost about nine occasions by filing the frivolous proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in imposing the exemplary costs while dismissing the writ petition - Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1257
Correctness of the award of the Labour Court - Reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that normally a writ court should not interfere with the award of the Labour Court, unless the award is perverse. It has been further held that if the award is not irrational or perverse, the High Court should not interfere with the reasons in the award. Further, it has been held that this Court should not re-appreciate the evidence placed before the Labour Court and substitute its own conclusions, merely because this Court is of the opinion that a different conclusion could have been arrived at on the available evidence. Bearing this legal principle in mind, this Court proceeds to examine the correctness of the impugned award.
Admittedly, the Employee worked as a Driver under the Employer Corporation. While he was working, the Employee has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tree standing on the road side, which claimed four lives and caused grievous injuries to 19 persons, which were not disputed. At the same time, in order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the Employee, no witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer - it appears that the Employee got superannuation in the year 2016. Moreover, the Employee was joined as Driver in the year 1995 and the charge memo was issued in the year 1999, and he was dismissed from service in the same year, ie., within a period of four years of his appointment. Hardly the Employee worked only four years in the respondent Corporation and he reached the age of superannuation in the year 2016.
This Court is inclined to modify the award of the Labour Court - the order of reinstatement is not possible. However, the Employee is entitled for continuity of service till the date of normal age of superannuation, however, he is not entitled for any backwages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation. Further, the Employee is entitled for continuation of service for the purpose of getting pensionary benefits.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1256
Validity of summons issued - petitioner says that the summons have been issued to the petitioners which are not only vague but also seek self-incriminating material from them - HELD THAT:- Mr. Bhatia, inter alia, stresses the point, that, in the summons, bank statements have been called for without specifying the relevant period for which the same need to be furnished. Besides this, the petitioners have been called to tender “voluntary statement”.
For the moment, the concerned officer will defer the enforcement of the direction issued requiring appearance of the petitioners before him, to a date beyond the next date fixed before this Court - List the matter on 12.04.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1255
Cost imposed by Court which is not yet deposited - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to entertain the present LPA as no conclusive determination of rights and liabilities of the parties have been decided. This LPA is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application, with costs of ₹ 10,000/- to be deposited by the appellant (original petitioner) with the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Service Authority within four weeks from today. The amount deposited will be use by Member Secretary, DLSA, for "Access to Justice" programmes.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to take instructions with regard to various matters for the next date of hearing - the Registry of this Court is directed to list this LPA on 12th April, 2021 to report compliance of the order.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1254
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
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
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.
............
|
9911796707
