|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1434 Records
-
2021 (8) TMI 1214
Mis-classification of imported goods - printed thermal paper rolls - to be classified under CTH 4911 9990 or not? - Country of Origin Certificate - benefit of exemption as per N/N. 26/2000-Cus. - Show Cause Notice in this case has been issued by the Additional Director General (ADG) of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - Proper officer or not - HELD THAT:- The issue on merits has been decided in the appellant's own case in M/S. HI-TEC CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-II [2017 (11) TMI 1437 - CESTAT CHENNAI] passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The classification adopted by the appellant under CTH 4911 9990 has been accepted by the Department and the proceedings initiated vide the Show Cause Notice have been dropped. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information as to whether any appeal has been filed by the Department against such Order-in-Original or whether the same has been accepted by the Department.
It is seen that the Department has accepted the decision passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva holding that the subject goods are to be classified under CTH 4911 9990. When this classification has been accepted, the Department cannot allege mis-classification for imports of the same goods made during the subsequent period.
In POPULAR CARBONIC PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-I COMMISSIONERATE [2021 (8) TMI 240 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the Tribunal held that when the issue has been decided and has attained finality, the Department cannot be permitted to take a different stand for subsequent periods. A similar view was taken in ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE & ST, LTU DELHI [2019 (11) TMI 1573 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH].
The correct classification of the impugned goods would be under CTH 4911 9990, as contended by the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1213
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee had claimed expenditure of Corporate Management Services paid to its AE - claim so made included 'year-end' provision made for an outstanding and assessee voluntarily disallowed above said amount u/s. 40(a)(i) - TPO determined ALP of Corporate Management services at NIL. and while computing TP adjustment, he reduced the amount voluntarily disallowed u/s. 40(a) - HELD THAT:- There should not be any dispute that the claim of the assessee is as per the provisions of sec. 40(a) of the Act - under Explanation to section 92(1) of the Act, the allowance for any expense shall also be determined having regard to arms length price - TPO has determined the arms length price at NIL in AY 2009-10, the entire claim made in the profit and loss account should have been considered as transfer pricing adjustment - TPO has reduced the amount disallowed u/s. 40(a) and made transfer pricing adjustment for the balance amount only in AY 2009-10
The question of making disallowance u/s. 40(a) shall apply, only if the relevant expenditure was found to be allowable, but for the provisions of sec. 40(a). Hence the action of TPO in reducing the T.P adjustment amount by the disallowance made u/s. 40(a) may not be right and in that case, the error lies in AY 2009-10. Having not done so, the Ld. CIT should not find fault with the claim of the assessee made u/s. 40(a) of the Act on the reasoning that the TDS has been made in this year, i.e., in AY 2010-11. the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue cannot be sustained.
Foreign services Employees expenses - TPO had determined ALP of intra group services at NIL - AR also took us through the query posed by the TPO during the course of TP proceedings. TPO has specifically asked whether the assessee is claiming any reimbursements as expenses without routing though the Profit and Loss account? - The assessee has also furnished reply to the same stating that reimbursement claims have been routed through the Profit and Loss account, meaning thereby, the TPO has specifically applied his mind on this issue. Hence the TPO has examined this issue and has taken a possible view, in which case, the revision order passed by Ld. CIT on this issue is also liable to be quashed.
In the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. as [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] as expressed the view that the assessment order cannot be considered to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue, if the AO has taken a plausible view - impugned revision order is not sustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1212
TP Adjustment - appropriate PLI for benchmarking the international transaction of rendering of business support services in respect of the overseas projects of the AE - not considering return on value added cost (ROVAC) - TPO opined the transaction in the present case is being compared is sales to AE and held the ROVAC cannot be used for the purposes of computing the PLI, as if would directly influence the PLI being in the denomination for computation of the rates - HELD THAT:- The contention of the ld. AR is that the contract charges incurred by the assessee for the services taken from third parties and prayed to treat the assessee as trader. Therefore, in our opinion, the berry ratio becomes academic
We deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of TPO for its fresh verification to decide whether the assessee is in the activities of business support service provider or in the trading activities or in the mix of both i.e. business support service provider and trading activities. The assessee is liberty to file all evidences, if any, in support of its claim and the TPO shall decide as indicated above. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1211
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Assessee in default under the first proviso to 201(1) - Assessee did not file Form 26A which is the certificate of auditor certifying that the payee has included the amount received from the assessee in his return of income filed for the relevant assessment year and paid taxes thereon - HELD THAT:- Assessee filed before us certificate of a Chartered Accountant under the 1st proviso to sub-section 1 of section 201 of the Act certifying that M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., has filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 and has included the income received form the assessee in such return of income - in the light of the certificate of the Chartered Accountant filed by the assessee, the issue with regard to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration - Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1210
TP Adjustment - corporate guarantee forms an international transaction or not? - Retrospective amendment to Section 92B - HELD THAT:- All the legal arguments fail to convince us as per Hon'ble Madras high court’s recent decision in Pr.CIT Vs. M/s.Redignton (India) Limited, [2020 (12) TMI 516 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] holds that Explanation to Section 92B inserted vide the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01-04-2002 also includes a corporate guarantee. We thus hold that the tribunal’s all foregoing orders must make way for higher wisdom and decline the assessee’s first and foremost legal plea.
Quantification of the impugned corporate guarantee adjustment - As relying on own case [2016 (1) TMI 936 - ITAT HYDERABAD] adopt judicial consistency and direct the TPO to adopt 0.53% rate in both these assessees’ cases in all these respective assessment years.
Quantification of the corporate guarantee adjustment itself in all these three assessment years - There is no dispute between the parties that the TPO herein had himself made it clear that “in case of guarantees covering more than one financial year the fee is charged by the banks at the beginning of the financial year on the outstanding amount”. As against this, the Revenue fails to dispute that case law BS LTD. [2018 (4) TMI 1742 - ITAT HYDERABAD], MANUGRAPH INDIA LTD. [2015 (3) TMI 1103 - ITAT MUMBAI] and M/S ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD[2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT] hold that such a corporate guarantee adjustment could only be made to the extent of actually utilized amount during the year than that of the full value of the guarantee itself. We adopt the very reasoning herein as well and directing the TPO to re-compute the impugned adjustment after taking into consideration only the actually utilised amount of the corresponding corporate guarantees in these three cases. The assessees’ identical first and foremost ground in all these three appeals is partly accepted in foregoing terms.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - proof of sufficient non-interest bearing funds - HELD THAT:- Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee’s exempt income than having any independent exigibility. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance for this precise reason alone.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1209
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO's action in respect of receipt of share capital by the assessee is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue - HELD THAT:- AO had issued notice u/s.142(1) and called for all the details of the share subscribers/share premium and pursuant to the notice of AO, the assessee had filed all the documents to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscription. The source of source of the share subscription was also brought to the notice of the AO,
Assessee company is a private limited company and it is closely held and has raised share subscription from its own directors and their wives who are all income tax assessee's and all the money has come through banking channel and their creditworthiness has also been proved by the documents produced - PCIT erred in finding that the source of share subscribers has not been properly enquired by the AO - since the condition precedent for invoking the revisional jurisdiction has not been satisfied the Ld. PCIT lacks of jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1208
Refund of excess excise duty paid - amount paid in cases where copper prices was less than provisional prices - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- Since the Hon’ble High Court has set aside the order passed by the CESTAT, the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal passed by way of impugned orders are not sustainable in law.
Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1207
Condonation of delay - proof of reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time before the CIT (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer had sent the demand notice at incorrect address which is clear from the demand notice and the envelope placed on record - demand notice was served by affixation on 30th March, 2013, at wrong address. In fact, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer himself has recorded that the correct address where the assessee resides, alongwith her husband. However, despite the above said the assessment order along with the demand notice were sent at the wrong address - the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) within the time granted by the statute.
Unexplained investment - Registered sale deed was made in the name of the assessee and her husband - AO had made the addition of 50% of assessee's share - HELD THAT:- Though the assessee sought to explain the source disclosed by Assessee's husband in his assessment order, however, the same do not come for rescue for the assessee, as it is for the assessee to disclose the source of investment made by her in the property.
Nothing has been disclosed and merely because the same was disclosed by the husband of the assessee, in our view, is no explanation in the eye of law as it is required to be independently tested and examined by the revenue authorities- in the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not submitted that the investment made by her was made after borrowing it from the husband. In fact, it was the case of the husband that the consideration was paid in cash to the seller. The assessing Officer of the husband had made the addition in the hands of the assessee (on account of undisclosed cash deposit in the bank account).
As the assessee failed to disclose the source of investment either before the Assessing Officer or before CIT or before us, therefore, we have no other option but to confirm the addition - Decided against assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1206
TDS u/s 194A - disallowance of interest paid to non-banking finance companies - Non deduction of TDS - AR submitted that the recipient of the payment has already been paid the tax and as such the same cannot be disallowed in the hands of the assessee - HELD THAT:- In view of the above order of the Tribunal [2019 (12) TMI 1537 - ITAT BANGALORE] we inclined to remit the issue to the files of the A.O. to allow the claim to the extent that the recipient of the payment paid the tax to the department. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the files of the A.O. for verification of the issue and deciding the same in accordance with law.
Disallowance u/s. 14A - AR submitted that the assessee earned dividend income which is exempt from Income-tax and the amount used for investments yielding exempt income, was made from assessee's own funds - HELD THAT:- It is the claim of the assessee that the assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from income tax and the funds used for investment is from its own funds. However, the assessee could not demonstrate the availability of its own funds for investment in exempt income. We, therefore, remit this issue to the files of the A.O. to examine the issue afresh and also direct the assessee to prove the availability of own funds for making investment in such exempted income yielding assets.
Disallowance of interest on advances made to Naveen Hotels towards purchase of land - Contention of the learned AR is that the assessee is having own funds to make investments to its sister concern - HELD THAT:- As the assessee has to prove that it is having sufficient interest free own funds to make investment to its sister concern - Case of Reliance Industries Limited [2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT] correctly relied - assessee has also to prove that it has not used any borrowed funds. With these observations, we remit the matter to the files of the A.O. to examine whether the assessee is having availability of interest free funds to make investment in sister concern. This ground is partly allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1205
Exemption u/s 10(23FB) - Assessee has made investment in VCUs (Venture Capital Undertakings) - as per AO said VCU is not engaged in carrying out any real estate business during the financial year 2015-16 as there was no financials maintained by the company and as the directors of the said entity were in custody for making defaults -Amrapali Smart City Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ASCD) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has accepted the claim which has also been reiterated by the assessee that interest income accruing from the said concern had been allocated to various investors who would have included the same in their return for income tax and paid the due tax in terms of section 115U and taxing the said income in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation. In this regard we note that learned Counsel of the assessee has made further submissions before us that in the subsequent financial year the assessee has reversed the interest entries from this concern on the ground that receipt was extremely doubtful - As pointed out that the assessee has not claimed deduction of the said reversion in financial accounts. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion order of CIT(A) on this issue is cogent and does not need any interference in our part.
Disallowance made with respect to CSN Estates Pvt. Ltd - CIT(A) is correct in holding that CSN is engaged in the development of the project. That it has purchased and provided land for the project, obtained necessary approvals and sanctions and has entered into development agreement with Lemon Tree for development and construction. Hence, in our considered opinion disallowance made by the Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by learned CIT(A)
Whether income of VCF shall be exempt only to the extent it is from the investment in venture capital undertaking ? - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Observation of the AO that, VCF was eligible for deduction under a specific section 10(23FB) and therefore it cannot claim deduction under another section 10(35) of the Act is totally inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Exemption under section 10(23FB) and exemption under section 10(25) of the Act operates in different fields. CIT(A) is correct in holding that operations of these sections are independent. Assessee’s income in VCU is exempt under section 10(23FB) of the Act and the dividend income is exempt under section 10(35) of the Act. Hence, there is no infirmity in the assessee’s claim of exemption on dividend income under section 10(35) - Decided against revenue.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1204
Suppressed profit on sale of project - undisclosed income - Estimation of Net profit of suppressed sales - HELD THAT:- This addition was duly and properly made on the basis of material discovered during the search. In our considered opinion learned CIT(A) has taken a correct view of the matter and has addressed all the issues. Accordingly, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A).
Addition u/s.40(a)(ia) - Non deduction of TDS - expenses on account of construction expenses and on account of labour charges - HELD THAT:- As the case of the appellant is covered by the decision in case of Bharati Shipyard [2011 (9) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI] and in case of DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd [2010 (11) TMI 555 - ITAT, KOLKATA]. Therefore, it is held that the case of the assessee is covered u/s. 40(a)(ia) and the addition made by the AO on this account is upheld.
Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has duly submitted additional evidences before learned CIT(A). It was duly submitted that the amount received was booking advance and name of the party, his confirmation and photocopy of the PAN was also submitted. CIT(A) simply rejected the additional evidence on the ground that it was not submitted earlier - issue may be remitted to the Assessing Officer - Appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Addition had been made on the order but the same remained to be added in the computation of total income - HELD THAT:- We find ourselves duly in agreement with the order of learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer having made addition by discussing in the assessment order and making the addition in the body thereof and has mistakenly omitted it from the computational part. Hence, in our considered opinion there is no infirmity in the order under section 154 correcting the same. As rightly pointed out by learned CIT(A) the merits in this regard could not have been gone into by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under section 154 of the Act. Hence, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A).
Addition u/s 68 - sundry creditors and advances for booking as the parties have not responded to the notice u/s 133(6) - HELD THAT:- In the order of the Assessing Officer, only balances as at the closing of the year has been mentioned. It is not mentioned whether they arose during the year or they are coming from earlier year. In case they are coming from earlier year, addition under section 68 of the Act is not at all permissible. Hence, in our considered opinion this issue needs to be remitted to the file of the AO. AO shall examine the issue afresh in the light of our observation as above and thereafter he will pass an order in accordance with law.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1203
Seeking restoration of name of the Company in the Register of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- After hearing the Counsel for Applicant and after perusal of material documents on record, the report of the RoC, Hyderabad and after going through the provisions of Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, and in view of the special circumstances of the case, the name of the Company to be restored in the Register of Companies as maintained by RoC, in the larger public interest.
The Registrar of Companies, the Respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Company as if the name of the company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies - application allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1202
Admission of claims of the workers - Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 read with Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The claims of workmen who have toiled to serve the company and helped in production and running of the same through hard labour, must be given due importance. The Companies Act as well as the IBC 2016, contain specific provisions for workmen for this reason. Hence the Legislative intent also is to protect the interest of the workmen - In the instant case when CIRP was ordered, then also their claims were made before the RP, and all the records and documents available with the RP would have been handed over to the Liquidator at the time of his appointment as Liquidator. Further as per Regulation 19(4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations 2016, the Liquidator may admit the claims of the workmen on the basis of the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor if a claim has not been made by the Workmen.
Once the workmen have made a claim, through their Union, the same has to be made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time. As per Regulation 16, a stakeholder has to prove his claim for the debt or dues to him as on the liquidation commencement date. As per Reg. 19, in the case of workmen, the proof of claim has to be submitted to the liquidator in person, or by post or electronic means in prescribed forms. The proof has to be provided in the manner laid down in Reg. 19(3) - the claim can also be accepted as per the books of accounts of the corporate Debtor.
The claim of the workmen needs to be considered by the Liquidator. This denial of claims would be against all norms of justice and equity. Hence, without any comment on or interfering with the disputes that are sub-judice before various courts, thus, the legitimate and verifiable dues of the workmen must be considered by the Liquidator.
The order rejecting the claims of the Applicants is set aside - petition disposed off.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1201
Long tern capital gain - Valuation of property - determination of fair market value of the property - adoption of the deemed sales consideration according to the provisions of Section 50 C - HELD THAT:- As the difference between stamp duty valuation u/s 50C is just 8.98 % higher than the actual sale consideration. Only actual sale consideration should be taken for working out capital gain. Accordingly, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Deduction u/s 54 - whether it is to be restricted to only one residential unit against the total investment made by the assessee in two adjoining residential unit - HELD THAT:- Assessee has purchased two adjacent units of house property and claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. For the impugned assessment year section 54 provided exemption in investment in “a‟ residential house and which is amended by Finance Act, 2014 wherein, word “a‟ has been replaced by word “one ‟. This amendment is prospective in nature cannot be given a retrospective effect. In view of this, in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the assessee has purchased two adjacent residential houses, according to us the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the Act on the amount invested in both the houses.
Addition u/s 69 - Unexplained investment in purchases of property - HELD THAT:- Source of the fund is available with the assessee for payment to the builder and further the medical exigencies are meet by the Govt is not denied, We found that in absence of any other evidences contrary , benefit of cash available on hand should be granted four source of investment of ₹ 1 lakh with the builder. Accordingly, we direct the ld AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
Adopting indexed cost of acquisition shown by the assessee - HELD THAT:- AO has considered the indexed cost of acquisition without giving any reason that why he is not agreeing with the indexed cost of acquisition shown by the assessee of ₹ 6,991,206 as shown in the computation of income. Therefore we agree with the argument of the learned authorised representative. We direct the ld AO to consider the cost of acquisition of the property sold/transferred for computation of capital gain. Thus, Ground is allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1200
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The counsel for the Operational Creditor successfully demonstrated and proved the existence of debt and default. The debt is within limitation. Thus, the Company Petition satisfies all the requirements for admission. Since the Corporate Debtor remained ex-parte even without filing any reply, the claim of the applicant remained unchallenged.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1199
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - input services - capital goods installed in the Research & Development wing - scope of remand proceedings - Section 2(e) of the Central excise Act, 1944 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the registered premises, appellant should undertake the activities relating to manufacture of the finished goods, it is not necessary that each and every part of the premises should be dedicated to manufacturing of the finished goods, there can be number of parts which undertake the activities such as storage of the raw material and finished goods, administrative activities, development of the product manufactured etc. all such activities are integral to manufacture of the finished products.
Admittedly the Research and Development building is not the office of the appellant factory. The only question which needs to be examined whether these Capital Goods are used in the factory of manufacturer. The phrase used in the definition of Capital Goods, is not the same as that in the definition of “inputs” where it is stated that to qualify as inputs the goods should have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. In case of the Capital Goods, the use of Capital Good within the factory of manufacturer whether in or in relation to manufacture of the finished products or otherwise shall make them eligible as Capital Goods in terms of the definition. The observations made by the Commissioner that these capital goods should have been used by the manufacturer in his “factory” whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products do not find support from the definition of Capital Goods.
Since the Capital Goods after the demolition of manufacturing sheds, were shifted within the registered premises from the from the manufacturing shed to the Research and Development Building, the same cannot be said to have been removed from the factory. Undisputedly the CENVAT Credit taken against these Capital Goods when they were received was not disputed by the revenue - In the decision of DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. VERSUS JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [1978 (2) TMI 205 - DELHI HIGH COURT], taking of the goods from one place in the registered premises/ factory to the other place in the same registered premises/ factory do not amount to removal or clearance of the goods.
As it is held, the Research and Development Building to be the part of the factory/ registered premises of the Appellant, CENVAT Credit on the input services for use in the said Research and Development building/ activities could not have been denied - It is settled law that CENVAT Credit on the inputs or the input services received by the appellant cannot be denied to the appellant till the time the same are used in the factory of the manufacturer.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- All the activities were well within the knowledge of the department as is seen from the various correspondences highlighted by the tribunal in the order remanding the matter back to the original authority. In view of the specific correspondences and declarations referred earlier, there are no justification in invoking the extended period of limitation for making these demands.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1198
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor, throughout the averments made in the counter, seems to have only alleged that there exists a dispute between the parties. However, in order to substantiate the said averments made in the counter, no documentary evidence or proof has been filed by the Corporate Debtor to show that there exists a real dispute between the parties. As per the contention of the Corporate Debtor, if the materials supplied by the Operational Creditor is found to be defective, no correspondence whatsoever was exchanged between the parties in relation to the supply of the defective materials to the Corporate Debtor has been placed on record by the Corporate Debtor and all these allegations seem to be only a moonshine defence raised by the Corporate Debtor in order to defeat the claim of the Operational Creditor.
There is no dispute in relation to the supply of goods by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor and also those defences raised by the Corporate Debtor are afterthought and also all these defences have been raised by the Corporate Debtor very much after the issuance of the Demand Notice which cannot be termed as a dispute as envisaged under Section 9 of IBC, 2016.
Whether the Operational Creditor has proved the 'Operational Debt' and the 'default' committed on the part of the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- It is seen that all the invoices raised by the Operational Creditor squarely falls for the period from 2017 to 2018 and the present application was filed before this Tribunal on 21.02.2020 and also the services provided by the Operational Creditor and the failure to make payment by the Corporate Debtor will fall within the meaning of "Operational Debt", as stated under Section 5(20) of the IBC, 2016.
The application is admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1197
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditor - financial contract or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It becomes clear that it is incumbent upon the Financial Creditor while filing this petition to place on record before this Authority, the 'Financial Contract' and demonstrate without any ambiguity from the financial contract, the amount disbursed as per the loan/debt, the tenure of the loan/debt, the interest payable and the conditions of repayment. In the present case, it is evident that the Financial Creditor has not placed on record any Financial Contract or any Financial Agreement, in pursuance of which the loan was disbursed to the Corporate Debtor. The Part V of the Petition also discloses the fact that the Financial Creditor has only attached the copy of the ledger of the Financial Creditor maintained in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor.
Even the Financial Creditor has not placed on record any Promissory Note, in the present case, which can be construed as a 'Financial Contract' in order to prove the debt qualifies to be a 'financial debt' - In the present case, there is no financial contract which is seen on record in order to establish that the relationship between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor herein in order for the Applicant to qualify as a 'Financial Creditor' and in the absence of the same, the default as alleged by the Financial Creditor cannot be determined.
In the absence of any 'Financial Contract' between the parties - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1196
Sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- There is no impediment in the approval of the 'Scheme'. The Scheme (Annexure P-1) is hereby approved. While approving the Scheme, it is clarified that this Order should not be construed as an Order in any way granting exemption from payment of any stamp duty, taxes or any other charges, if any, and payment in accordance with law or in respect of any permission/compliance with any other requirement which may be specifically required under any law. With the sanction of the 'Scheme', the Transferor Companies shall stand dissolved without undergoing the process of winding up resulting in increase in the share capital of the Transferee Company.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1195
Sanction of scheme of Arrangement - seeking to dispense with the meetings of the Equity Shareholders, Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Companies - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The Companies have followed extant provisions of Companies Act in framing the Scheme in question, which are duly approved by the Board of Directors of the Companies involved. The Statutory Auditors/Chartered Accountants of the Companies have also issued respective Certificates by inter-alia certifying the details of shareholders, creditors, and compliance of accounting treatment as prescribed U/s 133 of the Companies Act, 2013 with reference to the Scheme in question. The Applicant Companies have disclosed all the material facts relating to the Scheme in question and filed necessary documents along with the Application.
Various directions with regard to holding, convening and dispensation with various meetings issued - directions with regard to issuance of various notices issued - the scheme is approved - application allowed.
............
|
9911796707
