|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1471 Records
-
2022 (1) TMI 1234
Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - DR submits that the AO while recording the reasons for re-opening the assessment has relied upon two judgments one of Delhi High Court and other of Ahmedabad ITAT and therefore, the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that there has been escapement from assessment cannot be faulted - HELD THAT:- We have to note at the outset that the ITAT order is not binding on this court. Secondly, the judgment/order of the Delhi High Court relied upon for the reasons for re-opening has been reported [2012 (11) TMI 323 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Therefore, it is a judgment of 2013 or earlier. The assessment order in this case has been passed on 15th December, 2018 and the query on this issue has been raised on 8th October, 2018 and replied by petitioner vide its letter dated 12th November, 2018. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had benefit of the judgment of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the Assessing Officer wanting to re-open the assessment but still did not find anything wrong in the case made out by petitioner and proceeded to pass the assessment order.
In the circumstances, it is quite clear that it is nothing but change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer wanting to re-open the assessment. The re-opening of assessment based on change of opinion goes to the root of the matter and as held repeatedly by various courts, is not permissible.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1233
Extension of pensionary benefits to the employees of Water and Land Management Institute, the State of Maharashtra and another - whether the employees of the WALMI are entitled to the pensionary benefits on par with the State Government employees? - HELD THAT:- WALMI is an independent autonomous body and a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The administration and management of the WALMI is through its Governing Council. That WALMI has its own Rules, namely, WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980, governing the service conditions and the benefits available to the employees of WALMI. The WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980 provide for the benefits of travelling allowance, daily allowance, medical reimbursement, house rent allowance etc. but however, do not provide for pension, provident fund. Thereafter the Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except Pension Rules. Thus, it can be seen that WALMI is an independent autonomous entity governed by their own Rules and Regulations and the administration and management of WALMI is being run through/by its Governing Council.
It is required to be noted that as such the Government vide G.R. dated 08.11.2005 specifically took a policy decision that the employees of aided institutes, boards, corporations, who are not governed by Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, shall not be made applicable to such institutions. Even the proposal made by the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI came to be rejected by the State Government. Neither the G.R. dated 08.11.2005 nor the decision of the State Government refusing to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI are challenged.
As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees.
In the present case, WALMI being an autonomous body, registered under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of WALMI are governed by their own Service Rules and conditions, which specifically do not provide for any pensionary benefits; the Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except the Pension Rules - the High Court is not justified in directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous entity.
The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI is unsustainable, both in law and on facts - Appeal allowed.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1232
Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - change of opinion - HELD THAT:- The issue raised is regarding the finished stocks which was for unsold flats of two projects at Kandivali and Bandra and according to respondents, petitioner's has not offered tax under the head income from house property. Dr. Shivram states that the same issue was raised during the assessment proceedings as could be seen from Item No.16 in the annexure to notice dated 8th October, 2018, issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and petitioner has replied to, the same vide petitioner's letter dated 8th November, 2021. Dr. Shivram states that this issue has not been discussed in the assessment order but still relying on Aaroni Commercials Ltd. 2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT submitted that once a query has been raised and it has been replied to, the Assessing Officer is deemed to have applied his mind and considered the same even if that issue has not been discussed in the assessment order.
Mr. Suresh Kumar requests the matter be taken up after a week so that he can take instructions in the meanwhile.
Stand over to 24th January, 2022.
Respondents in the meanwhile shall not take any further steps pursuant to the order passed on 10th December, 2021, rejecting petitioner's objection.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1231
Seeking permission to submit the resolution plan to RP to enable CoC to consider the same - HELD THAT:- The CoC is the final Authority as on date to decide about the discretion and decision with respect to resolution plans. If CoC finds that considering this plan may bring maximization of value, it may take a call and decide accordingly. RP to file an affidavit to the effect of the decision taken by the CoC with respect to the present applicant.
Issue notice to RP and CoC. List the matter on 04.03.2022.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1230
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - respondent has passed the impugned order disposing/over ruling the objection of the petitioner against reopening of the Assessment under Section 148 - HELD THAT:- In this case, the assessment was made pursuant to returns filed under Section 139 of the IT Act. The scrutiny assessment passed under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was based on the information in the returns. Whether there was a suppression of facts or not may be decided in the proceedings under Section 148 - The impugned order has merely justified the reasons for reopening of the assessment. It cannot be said that the respondent has come to a definite conclusion as to whether indeed the case made out for recomputing the income based on the reasons given and the observations in the impugned order.
It is still open for the petitioner to give a proper explanation/reason as to why the assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 148 of the IT Act was erroneous both on the facts and on the law.
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order over ruling the objection of the petitioner. Liberty is however given to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the respondent by filing suitable reply for the respondent to pass appropriate reassessment order in accordance with law and on merits.
It is made clear that the observation in the impugned order is only for disposing the objection of the petitioner against reopening the completed assessment. Ultimately, the issue will have to be decided on merits. It is for the petitioner to file appropriate reply/representation explaining the reason as to why the completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act on 07.10.2016 deserves to be reconfirmed.
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed. The respondent is directed to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1229
Withdrawal of the Ex-bond Bill of Entries - Reinstatement of Bill of Entries to warehousing Bills of Entries - HELD THAT:- When Mr Banerjee was asked whether the impugned assessment/determination of duties is further appealable or any other remedy available against determination or rejection of the petitioner’s application for withdrawal of the aforesaid bond for Bill of Entries in question, he could not show any provision for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance.
The only scope for consideration in this writ petition is with regard to consideration of the petitioner’s application for cancellation or withdrawal of the Ex-bond relating to Bill of Entries in question which, sitting in writ court, cannot be acted as an adjudicating authority - the matter is remanded to the respondent concerned to consider the petitioner’s application for cancellation/withdrawal of the Ex-bond relating to Bill of Entry in question afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1228
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non application of mind by the officer who passed the order on objections - HELD THAT:- We have satisfied that petitioner’s grievance that there has been non application of mind by the officer who passed the order on objections, cannot be faulted. The order dated 12th August 2021 disposing of petitioner’s objections against issue of notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2017-2018, is set aside.
The matter is remanded to respondent no.1, who shall once again consider the submissions made by petitioner and grant personal hearing to petitioner before passing the order on objections. The notice regarding the date and time of personal hearing shall be given atleast 7 days in advance. The objections to re-opening shall be disposed of by the concerned officer within 4 weeks of this order being uploaded.
The assessment proceedings may thereafter be continued and disposed in a further period of 8 weeks from the date of order on objections is passed.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1227
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligibility of issuance of approval - HELD THAT:- Since it is the issue of revenue of the State (the question of income alleged to have escaped assessment), we direct the then DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai Mr. Trilochan Singh Khalsa, Mr. Ashok Pophare Additional CIT, CR-6, Mumbai and Ms. Irina Garg, Principal CIT, Central-3, Mumbai who are the officers who have signed on the Form for re-opening under Section 151 of the Act, to explain the basis on which re-opening was approved when the form had errors. If these three officers or any of them is not in service, such person need not file the affidavit but the others in that case will mention when this person retired in their respective affidavit.
The affidavits in compliance with the order dated 21st December, 2021, to be filed within three weeks from today.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1226
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - HELD THAT:- Disallowance towards warrant issue expenses claimed u/s. 35D of the Act and as a matter of fact Ground No.5 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 relates to interest income, whether should be taxed under the head “income from other sources” or as “business income” was the issue and the Tribunal inadvertently did not adjudicate upon this issue. Therefore, the assessee in its petition prays that the Tribunal may recall its order for the A.Y.2013-14 to rectify the typographical error crept in the order of the Tribunal and to dispose off ground No.5 of ground of appeal.
On hearing the rival contentions and perusing the order of the Tribunal, we noticed that there are certain typographical errors crept in the order of the Tribunal especially in Para Nos. 118 and 119 at Page No.75. Thus the same are rectified hereunder.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1225
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - recalling the order of the Tribunal to dispose off additional grounds of appeal of the assessee for the A.Y.2009-10 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal inadvertently omitted to dispose off the additional grounds of appeal in assessee’s appeal.
It is observed from the order of the Tribunal that there is a mistake apparent on record in not disposing off the above additional grounds of appeal of the assessee - To rectify the mistake apparent on record, we recall the appeal of the assessee in [2020 (11) TMI 809 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the limited purpose of disposing off the above additional grounds of appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1224
Seeking grant of bail - requirement of submission of initial deposit - HELD THAT:- The appellant, on instructions states that after the initial deposit of ₹ 60 crores, ₹ 40 more crores have been deposited totaling to ₹ 100 crores - appellant will make arrangements to ensure that ₹ 50 more crores is deposited in 12 weeks and another ₹ 50 more crores within 12 weeks thereafter, totaling to ₹ 200 crores
Subject to the undertaking being complied, bail is granted to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court - appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1223
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - rejection of objections filed by petitioner for re-opening under Section 148 - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to entertain these petitions. At the same time, the AO who will be different from the officer who had pass the order dated 10th October, 2019 rejecting the objections filed by petitioner for re-opening under Section 148 shall permit petitioner to file further documents and case laws if adviced and also grant a personal hearing before passing the assessment order. The assessment order to be passed within 12 weeks from the date this order is uploaded. Petitioner shall be given atleast seven days advance notice about the date and time of the personal hearing.
AO shall deal with all the submissions made by petitioner including those raised in his objections to the re-opening and pass detailed order in accordance with law.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1222
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Rejection of objections filed by petitioner for re-opening under Section 148 - HELD THAT:- AO who will be different from the officer who had pass the order rejecting the objections filed by petitioner for re-opening under Section 148 shall permit petitioner to file further documents and case laws if advised and also grant a personal hearing before passing the assessment order. The assessment order to be passed within 12 weeks from the date this order is uploaded. Petitioner shall be given atleast seven days advance notice about the date and time of the personal hearing.
Assessing Officer shall deal with all the submissions made by petitioner including those raised in his objections to the re-opening and pass detailed order in accordance with law.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1221
Depreciation on goodwill - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2019 (12) TMI 370 - ITAT DELHI] the arguments of the DRP on different facets of goodwill acquired in business reconsideration and held that the assessee to be entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill, as per the rates applicable for the year under consideration. Following same parity of reasoning, we allow the claim of the assessee of depreciation on goodwill.
Deduction incurred on account of reimbursement paid to the parent company towards ESOP for granting stock options to the employee of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee own case [2019 (12) TMI 370 - ITAT DELHI] we direct the Assessing officer to delete the impugned disallowance of ESOP.
Non granting deduction of profit on sale of assets - HELD THAT:- We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue at hand and we remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing officer for rectifying the computation of income after verification of the claim of the assessee.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1220
Disallowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - assessee had debited the rural bad debts against the Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts (PBDD) allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- When the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to non-rural/ urban advances. As far as application of explanation to section 36(1)(vii) is concerned, we agree with the AR that its operation will be prospective and will not apply to the impugned AY.
As careful reading of explanation to section 36(1)(vii) would indicate that nowhere it suggests that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) would apply in respect of bad debt written off relating to non-rural advances. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that assessee would be eligible to avail deduction of an amount representing actual write off in the books of account of bad debts relating to non-rural/urban advances in terms with section 36(1)(vii), as proviso to the said section would not apply to non-rural advances. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A).
Applicability of sec.115JB - HELD THAT:- Following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Canara Bank [2022 (1) TMI 124 - ITAT BANGALORE] we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his file for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.
Addition made to book profit as per sec. 115JB - whether amount debited to Profit and Loss account under the head “Provision for funded interest term loan” and “Provision for others” are liable to be added to net profit u/s 115JB - Since the issue regarding applicability or otherwise of sec.115JB is restored to the file of Ld CIT(A), this issue is also restored to the file of Ld CIT(A) for examining it afresh.
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- As held in the case of Vireet Investment [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] that only those investments, which has yielded dividend income should be considered for computing average value of investments. Before us, the Ld A.R also relied on certain decisions in order to contend that the provisions of sec.14A itself are not applicable to banks. Thus, we notice that various contentions are involved in this issue and hence we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of AO for examining it afresh.
TDS u/s 194H - disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in the assessee bank’s own case [2015 (3) TMI 1360 - ITAT BANGALORE], wherein the disallowance was deleted by this Tribunal by holding that the payment made by the assessee company could not be considered as commission/brokerage liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194H. CIT(A) has decided an identical issue in assessment year 2012-13 in the assessee bank’s own case itself in favour of the assessee bank and it was also upheld by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the above said disallowance.
Disallowance of claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has rendered his decision on this issue following the decision rendered by co-ordinate bench of ITAT on an identical issue. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1219
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - service of notice - time limitation - applicant was in the employment of the respondent or not - applicant had obtained domain name "tejacement.com" without knowledge of the Directors of the respondent or not - exercise of equitable jurisdiction by this Adjudicating Authority or not.
Whether the application is barred by law of limitation? - HELD THAT:- Placing reliance on the documents available, wherein there is a clear and categorical admission of outstanding dues of the applicant by the respondent, it can be said that right to sue for the said amount accrued in favour of the applicant consequent to non-payment and the present claim having been filed on 28.03.2020 is well within three years of accrual of right to sue. Therefore, the claim as made under the demand notice as well as the application are within the period of limitation.
Whether the applicant was not in the employment of the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that as per the interim reply/Counter dated 13.12.2018 filed by the Corporate Debtor, it is specific contention of the Corporate Debtor that the Corporate Debtor has not made any offer of employment to the applicant/Operational Creditor, under the respondent nor even offered shares in the respondent/company. However, in its subsequent reply/Counter dated 02.08.2019, the Corporate Debtor has contended that the Operational Creditor had offered to help the respondent in the work of establishment of cement factory in Andhra Pradesh and that the Corporate Debtor has handed over letter-heads and other documents relating to the respondent/company to the Operational Creditor. It is also averred that the Operational Creditor had voluntarily accompanied Mr. Mule Srinivasulu Reddy occasionally.
It is also to be noted that according to the applicant he was offered employment in the respondent-company by the Managing Director of the respondent- company vide correspondence dated 25.07.2011 and since then he has been rendering his services to the respondent. In the Economic Survey Report dated September 2014, it has been mentioned that the applicant has been associating with the respondent-company in all aspects for the last four years. His qualification and past experience was also mentioned in the said Techno-Economic Feasibility Report. So much so the Techno-Economic Feasibility Report has in fact, fully supports the contention of the applicant that he has been under the employment of the respondent-company since 2011.
Also, the plea of the Corporate Debtor that correspondence relied upon by the applicant- Operational Creditor including e-mails are fabricated and forged as the Operational Creditor is in possession of letter-heads, etc. of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the applicant had placed reliance not only on certain letters said to have been exchanged between the applicant and Srinivasula Reddy, but also on the letters/e-mails addressed to some third parties including Government agencies/Departments - there are no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor that the letters are forged and fabricated by the applicant. Consequently, the documents establishes the employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the respondent is assumed accordingly.
Whether the applicant had obtained domain name "tejacement.com" without knowledge of the Directors of the respondent and created e-mail ID [email protected] purported to be that of Mule Srinivasula Reddy and had misused the same? - HELD THAT:- The communications include the correspondence made with the Government authorities at the level of Principal Secretary and the said correspondence relates to the request for certain statutory clearances required for setting up a cement plant. Thus, when these letters are for the benefit of the respondent, we are unable to find any force in the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the above referred e-mails/letters are forged by the applicant - the correspondence and letters relied upon by the applicant herein are the letters and correspondence made in the capacity of employee of the respondent. As such the plea of misuse of e-mail ID of Srinivasula Reddy by the applicant is totally unfounded and mischievous.
Whether there is no operational debt and default? - HELD THAT:- The applicant was offered employment in the respondent/company though his position could not be clearly designated, as such there are no hesitation to hold that the claim of the Operational Creditor comes within the meaning of section 5(21) of the I&B Code, 2016. Thus, the operational debt has been established by the applicant.
Whether admitting this petition would amount to exercising equitable jurisdiction by this adjudicating authority? - HELD THAT:- In the present case the Operational Creditor is able to demonstrate by way of several communications that there was a contract of employment, whether disputed or undisputed and there is breach thereof - the petitioner's claim does commensurate with the definition provided under section 3(6) of the I&B Code, 2016. Thus, there is no need to emphasize that even remotely the principles of equity is not been considered - the issue answered in negative.
There is ample and irrefutable evidence of association of the Operational Creditor with the Corporate Debtor/Company and the services rendered by Operational Creditor for the Corporate Debtor/company. While appreciating the covenants/contracts entered into between individuals in private sector, it is to be borne in mind that the perfection as is available in public sector/government sector in the matter of appointments cannot be expected in private sector. Private sector is a group of individuals, which owns private-sector business - the level of perfection practised in Union Public Service Commission or Staff Selection Commission in the matter of appointments cannot be expected in a private sector.
The present application deserves to be admitted under section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016. Accordingly, the application filed by the Operational Creditor is admitted and the Corporate Debtor is put under CIRP.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1218
Seeking suspension of the Look Out Circular issued against her for a period of six months to enable her to travel abroad to obtain medical treatment and take the Pfizer booster dose in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on 06.01.2022 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner should not be denied the opportunity of being administered a booster dose in UAE, especially, when she had taken the earlier two doses of the Covid vaccination in the UAE itself. It may be also noted that the petitioner has already been granted permission to travel abroad several times, which liberty she has never misused. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has, on 17.12.2021, in another case pending against the petitioner, granted her permission to travel abroad for a period of four months, subject to certain conditions.
The petitioner are permitted to travel to the UAE for a period of eight weeks, which permission would be subject to conditions already imposed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 17.12.2021. The petitioner will return back to the country within eight weeks of her departure from the country - application allowed.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1217
Payment of the Lease Rental dues - whether the rental dues of the Applicant is required to be paid in priority along with the CIRP dues or whether it is required to be paid when a Resolution Plan is approved or when the Corporate Debtor is ordered for liquidation? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is seen that the 2 Respondent is taking steps to keep the Company as a going concern and in such a case, it is the duty of the RP to pay the charges incurred on account of keeping the Company as a going concern. The RP during the CIRP period cannot at the one hand use the premises of the Applicants for generating revenue to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and at the other hand not paying the rental dues of the Applicants during the CIRP period - the Insolvency Resolution process cost is required to be borne by the Committee of Creditors and the Applicants in the present case cannot be made to run from pillar to post to recover their legitimate dues which has been incurred during the CIRP period.
In the present case, the RP has admitted that there are certain sum which are required to be paid to the Applicants, however relies upon the Judgment of this Tribunal passed In V. KARUPPIAH, K.R. POOMANI VERSUS V. MAHESH RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF M/S. VASAN HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (4) TMI 1305 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHENNAI] to state that the said amount would be paid in priority when a Resolution Plan is approved or when the Corporate Debtor is ordered for liquidation. The order passed by this Tribunal ¡n the said case is required to be discerned with the case of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the matter of Prerna Singh [2021 (12) TMI 742 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI], wherein it was categorically held that the right of lessor to recover rent is affected on account of moratorium and therefore the lessor is entitled to recover the rent and which shall Include in CIRP costs.
The 2nd Respondent is directed to pay to the Applicants a sum of ₹ 1,17,28,159/- within a period of 14 days from the date of this order and the same shall be paid from the Insolvency Resolution process cost - the 2nd Respondent Is directed to pay the monthly rent to the Applicants during the CIRP period, till such time the Corporate Debtor is in occupation of the demised premises.
Application disposed off.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1216
Maintainability of petition - original bail application filed by the petitioner has been withdrawn by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact, that the bail application has already been withdrawn, the question of considering the impugned order passed on the purshis dated 18th June 2021, filed by the petitioner, does not arise.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (1) TMI 1215
Seeking convention of meeting of the Creditors - placing of scheme of compromise/settlement for their consideration before the creditors - ex-Promoters/Directors held guilty for the preferential transactions under Section 43 of the IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 29A(g) of the IBC 2016 and Regulation 2(B)(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Applicant is not eligible to file any application under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act.
Reliance placed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision [2021 (3) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT] in Civil Appeal No. 9664/2019 dated 15.03.2021, where it was held that it is clear that the Promoter, if ineligible under Section 29A Cannot make an application for Compromise and Arrangement for taking back the immovable property or actionable claims of the Corporate Debtor.
Application dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
