|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1477 Records
-
2016 (4) TMI 1258
Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Demerger - Held that:- The Applicant has sought dispensation from the holding of such meetings of creditors. Considering the above facts and the submissions advanced, the dispensation of the meetings of the creditors of the Applicant Resulting Company, is granted.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1257
Composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Demerger - convening the meetings of the Equity Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of the applicant Company - Held that:- In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions advanced, dispensation is sought from the procedure prescribed under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and under Rules 46 to 65 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 and the same is, hereby, granted.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1256
Composite Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Demerger - Held that:- As submitted that all the Equity Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Company, as on date, have approved the Scheme in the form of written consent letters. All these consent letters are annexed with the Application as Exhibits‘ D’ and ‘E’ respectively. It has been submitted that there are no Secured Creditors. The certificates confirming the status of the Shareholders and Creditors as well as the receipt of consent letters from all the Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors are annexed collectively as Exhibit‘ F’. In view of the same, dispensation is sought from convening the meetings of the Equity Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Company. Considering all the same is, hereby, granted.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1255
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- Having heard Mr. Navin K Pahwa, learned advocate for the applicant and considering the fact that all the Equity Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of the applicant company have given their consent in writing to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation, as required under Section 391(2) of the Act, the meetings of the Equity Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of the applicant company are ordered to be dispensed with.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1254
Scheme of amalgamation - Held that:- It has been submitted that all the Equity Shareholders of the applicant Company have approved the Scheme in the form of written consent letters. All these consent letters are annexed with the application as Exhibit' D'. It has been further submitted that there are no Secured or Unsecured Creditors of the applicant Company. The certificates confirming the status of the Shareholders and Creditors as well as confirming the receipt of consent letters from all the Shareholders is annexed as Exhibit' E'. In view of the same, dispensation is sought from convening the meeting of the Equity Shareholders of the applicant Company. Considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced, the same is, hereby, granted.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1253
Release 20,643.97 gms of gold and jewellery seized seeked - Held that:- Without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I also direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's prayer for the release of the gold and jewellery taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the judgment in Puspa Ranjan Sahoo Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) [2012 (9) TMI 432 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1252
Demerged/ Transferor Company seeking directions for convening the meetings of the Equity and Preference Shareholders as well as of the Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the applicant Company - Held that:- Considering the proposed Scheme of Demerger, the following directions are issued :-
(i) The meetings of the Equity and Preference Shareholders as well as the meetings of the Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the applicant Company shall be held on 2nd May 2016, at the registered office of the applicant Company. It is provided that Mr.Chandrakant Patel and in his absence Mr.Tapan Patel, shall be the Chairman of the meeting and shall submit the report of the meeting to this Court.
(ii) The notice of the meeting may be published in the English daily newspaper “Indian Express” and the Gujarati daily newspaper “Divya Bhaskar”, both Vadodara editions. Publication in the Government Gazette is dispensed with.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1251
Commercial disputes - eligibility to order under Section 14 of SERFAESI ACT whereby the respondent-Bank was given the police assistance for the purpose of taking possession of the mortgaged property, came to be passed by the District Magistrate at the instance of Bank, by by-passing his rights and without affording him the necessary opportunity - Held that:- In relation to commercial disputes and matters, the remedy before the alternative forum specially created under the special statute has to be necessarily resorted to before a party can be permitted to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction and writ powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such matters, the normal rule of relegating the party to the alternative remedy and not allowing the approaching to the High Court straightway would require a steadfast adherence.
As a result, this petition is not entertained and dismissed, relegating the petitioner to the remedy of Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which may be resorted to by the petitioner, if advised.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1250
TPA - selection of comparable - Held that:- As assessee company engaged in the business of software development. The company provides software development and allied services in the area of Mail Plant, Web Mail platform and internet related software. This company in Hyderabad is registered as a 100% EoU under STPI Scheme of Govt. of India. This company is one of the group companies of United Online, US, thus companies functionally different with that of assessee need to de-selected from final list of comparability.
We therefore direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to determine the ALP keeping in view our directions given hereinabove and if on such determination the price charged by the assessee for its international transaction is found to be within the arms length then no adjustment is required to be made.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1249
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the demand of Service Tax for "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Calculation of taxable service value in relation to SIM card activation charges.
3. Clarification on double taxation regarding distinct services under "Telecommunication Service" and "Business Auxiliary Service."
4. Justification of rejecting the Department's plea based on previous case law and circulars.
Issue 1: Interpretation of "Business Auxiliary Service" under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The judgment raises the question of whether the demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalties for the period in question was correctly confirmed by the Hon'ble CESTAT. The appellant argues that the "Business Auxiliary Service" was clearly defined under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, and included services rendered by the respondent. The judgment refers to the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin (2011), emphasizing the need to determine if the demand was justified based on the legal provisions.
Issue 2: Calculation of taxable service value related to SIM card activation charges.
The judgment questions the correctness of the Hon'ble CESTAT's decision to drop the demand based on the value of the SIM card forming part of activation charges. It cites the Supreme Court's ruling in the Idea Mobile Communication case, where it was established that the value of the taxable service is calculated on the gross total amount. The judgment highlights the distinction between transactions to BSNL and payments by BSNL, raising doubts about the justification for dropping the demand in this context.
Issue 3: Clarification on double taxation and distinct services under "Telecommunication Service" and "Business Auxiliary Service."
The judgment delves into whether the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in treating the situation as double taxation, emphasizing the distinct nature of services. It points out that Service Tax was paid on the full value of the SIM card by BSNL under "Telecommunication Service," not under "Business Auxiliary Service." The demand from the respondent under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" on the commission received from BSNL is deemed different from the "Telecom Service," raising concerns about the correctness of the CESTAT's decision.
Issue 4: Justification of rejecting the Department's plea based on previous case law and circulars.
The judgment questions the justification behind the Hon'ble CESTAT rejecting the Department's plea, citing detailed reasons provided in a previous case involving M/s Martend Food & Dehydrates Pvt. Ltd. The judgment highlights the argument that tax should not be demanded when someone else has paid tax on the taxable value of a service, emphasizing the importance of consistency in tax application. The judgment refers to Board's Circulars and previous case law to support the decision to issue notice to the respondent, indicating a thorough consideration of legal precedents and circular guidelines.
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad addresses multiple complex issues related to the interpretation of Service Tax laws, calculation of taxable service values, double taxation concerns, and the application of legal precedents and circulars. It reflects a detailed analysis of the legal framework and emphasizes the need for clarity and consistency in determining tax liabilities in the context of distinct services and transactions.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1248
Approval of the scheme of amalgamation and arrangement - Held that:- The scheme has been approved by the respective Board of Directors (BOD) of the applicants. Copies of the BOD resolutions of even date i.e. 15.01.2016 have been filed.
The applicants aver that there that there are no proceedings pending against them, under Sections 235 to 251 of the Act. Dispense with the requirement of convening the meetings of the shareholders of the applicants as also the creditors (ie. secured and unsecured) of the transferee company and transferor company need to be adhered to.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1247
Doctrine of Habeas Corpus - Detention of petitioners - smuggling of gold - baggage rules - section 3[1][i] of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Held that: - it is not in dispute that the detenus, in their bail applications have retracted the inculpatory statements given to the authorities. But, in paras 11 & 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the detenus have given voluntary statements and no retractions of statement have been made. No written retractions were made either when they were in jail or when they were out on bail or during the course of investigation, hence, the consideration of the retraction does not arise. Further, the detention order is silent about the retraction.
The detention order is being passed as if the detenu I Om Prakash attempted to bring 23 kilograms of gold without proper declaration and it is also mentioned in the grounds of detention, however the declaration card was neither placed before the detaining authority nor supplied to the detenu despite asked for in the representation dated 29.09.2015. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the documents relied upon were supplied to the detenu. However, in the rejection order dated 28.10.2015, nothing is mentioned about supply of declaration card - It is settled law that the detaining authority should furnish all relevant and relied upon documents to the detenu to enable him to make effective representation. Further all documents which are relevant which would have bearing on the issue, which are likely to affect the mind of the detaining authority should be placed before it. In this case, the detention order would disclose that the detaining authority relies on the declaration card. However, it was neither placed before the detaining authority nor supplied to the detenu to make further representation to the advisory board.
Impoundment of passport of detenues - the passports of the detenus have been impounded by the authorities after their arrest - Held that: - when there was no material placed before the detaining authority that there is likelihood of detenus indulging in smuggling activities in future, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is based on no material.
Detention order passed is set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1246
CENVAT credit - capital goods - input services - Held that: - The credit availed on motor cars is per se not admissible as the services rendered do not fall within the category mentioned in clause (B) of Rule 2(a) of the definition of capital goods given in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The credit on certain other capital goods (Rs. 49,065/-) has been denied for the reason that appellant has not mentioned the classification of goods in their invoices.
Time limitation - Held that: - The appellant failed to file ST-3 returns. Only on filing such service tax return would the availment of credit on motor car and capital goods be disclosed to the Service Tax Department. Filing of income-tax returns would not suffice the requirement to file ST-3 returns - extended period invoked.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1245
Revision u/s 263 - addition on the basis of seized documents - evidence found against assessee to connect with the addition on merit - Held that:- When matter in issue has been considered in appeal and decided by the appellate authority, same would not be subject matter of proceedings under section 263 of the Act. All the original seized material have already been considered by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(Appeals), there was no justification to initiate the proceedings under section 263 after passing of the assessment order and the appellate order. Further, no evidence was found against assessee to connect with the addition on merit. Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s R.P. Import & Export Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 91 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] and there is no justification for the ld. Pr. CIT to initiate proceedings under section 263 of the Act.
Proceedings under section 263 are clearly beyond the competence of ld. Pr. CIT and whole proceedings are unjustified and unreasonable, therefore, the impugned order could not be sustained in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1244
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law by declining production of additional evidence in the appeals filed by the importer even though the Revenue has established sufficient cause to adduce additional evidence within the meaning of Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982? - Held that: - Whatever be the validity of such conclusions, the fact remains that the scope of rectification jurisdiction was extremely narrow. The Tribunal having considered all the aspects in the earlier round of litigation was correctly persuaded not to exercise jurisdiction of rectification - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1243
Mis-declaration of goods and value thereof - period of limitation - relevant date - principles of res judicata - import of low/high carbon steel wire rods and electrolytes zinc free of duty under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme by mis-declaring and undervaluing the goods and then disposing of the said imported goods in the local market for profit instead of using them in the manufacture of steel wire ropes for export - the decision in the case of Maldhari Sales Corporation & Others, Subhash Gupta, Janki Ram Versus Union of India & Others [2016 (2) TMI 309 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that The date of clearance of the consignment with reference to that B/E was obviously on a date after the date of such B/E - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - present SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1242
Condonation of delay - Appeals – Delegate – delegation of power - the decision in the case of Videocon International Ltd. and Maheshwar V. Kasbekar Versus UOI, GOI, Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [2011 (2) TMI 8 - Bombay High Court] contested - Held that: - The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1241
Insurance as well as reinsurance broker – international insurance - service providers situated abroad - import of services and / or export of services - reinsurance brokerage was not included in the taxable value of ‘insurance auxiliary service’ rendered to insurers/reinsurers for the disputed period - reverse charge - effective date of levy - the decision in the case of Suprasesh General Insurance Services & Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax, Custom, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2015 (9) TMI 1219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], contested for condonation of delay - Held that: - delay condoned.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1240
Dispensation of convening of meeting of shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the applicant company - Scheme of amalgamation - Held that:- The Board of Directors of the applicant-company in its meeting held on 08.09.2015 has resolved, approved and adopted the Scheme of Amalgamation of the applicant company with the transferee company subject to confirmation by this Court. Said resolution is at Annexure-C and it would indicate that Board of Directors of the applicant-company have approved the scheme of amalgamation-Annexure-G. The applicant company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company and therefore the transferee company has not filed any application before this Hon’ble Court.
Chartered Accountant of the applicant-company has also certified that as on 31.01.2016 there are no secured creditors and unsecured creditors as per certificate- Annexure-K.
The applicant – company has disclosed all the relevant material in the application and there is no impediment in law to grant the prayer sought for in the application. Hence, this court is of the considered view that prayer sought for deserves to be granted. Hence, following order is passed:
Company Application is hereby allowed. Convening of meeting of shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors is dispensed with.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1239
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - withdrawing a portion on interest granted to the assessee u/s. 244A of the Act on the refund - Held that:- The issue sought to be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act is a debatable issue, since an identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal Tata Power Co. Ltd. (2015 (8) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). The very fact that an identical issue has travelled up to the level of Tribunal would show that the said issue is a debatable one. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balram ITO Vs. Volkar Bros.(1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) has held that the decision taken on a debatable point of law shall not constitute a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned rectification orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and quash the impugned rectification orders.
Even on merit we notice that claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay Court rendered in the case of Tata Power Co. Ltd. (Supra). It is also pertinent to note that the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Tata Power Co. Ltd (supra) was available on the date of passing of impugned rectification orders. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee wins on merits also - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
