|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1861 Records
-
2018 (6) TMI 1583
The following two questions of law are framed for consideration:-
“1. Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in upholding the disallowance of the depreciation claimed to the extent of ₹ 5,10,79,752/- on account of asset reconstruction cost in holding that it was a contingent liability?
2. Did the ITAT fall into error in upholding the disallowance u/s 49(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to the discount offered by the assessee to the prepaid SIM Card distributor as commission?”
Proportionate interest claimed on account of Section 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- The Court is of the opinion that the assessee’s argument that the improved efficiency within the circle if it was allowed for operation of its licences, did not amount to extension of business, is unpersuasive. The facts are that the assessee is a license holder in respect of three telecom circles. At the relevant time, it sought to install cell-site towers claiming that they would merely improve its efficiency. The lower authorities discerned that materials on record clearly show that the object of such exercise was to reach the greater number of customers and thus increase subscriber base. In these circumstances, the finding of the lower authorities cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law arises.
Addition of advertising, marketing and promotion (AMP) expenses - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that all materials were available with it, the ITAT is directed to consider the transactions involving AMP expenditure as well as the issue of royalty. In this regard its observations with respect to the comparables used by the assessee vis-a-vis the two foreign parties shall not be treated conclusive. The ITAT shall carry out necessary inquiry if need be by resorting to a limited remand to the TPO or DRP as the case may be having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and decide whether AMP expenses required in the present case involve international transaction, if so, to what extent.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1582
Approval of the resolution plan - in-principle approval alleged to have been given by the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- On perusal of this Affidavit filed by the RP, this Bench having noticed that the Affidavit moved by the RP to get an order under Section 33(1) of IB Code, 2016 and the Regulations thereof, this Bench hereby orders as follows:
a. This Bench hereby orders the Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in the Chapter by issuing a Public Notice stating that the Corporate Debtor is in liquidation with a direction to the Liquidator to send this order to RoC under which this Company has been registered.
b. As to appointment of Liquidator, the Resolution Professional i.e. the applicant herein is hereby directed to act as a Liquidator for the purpose of liquidation with all powers of the Board of Directors, key managerial persons and the partners of the Corporate Debtor shall cease to have effect and hereby vested in the Liquidator. The personnel of the Corporate Debtor are directed to extend all co-operation to the Liquidator as may be required by him in managing the affairs of the Corporate Debtor. The Insolvency Professional appointed as Liquidator will charge fees for conduct of the liquidation proceedings in proportion to the value of the liquidation estate assets as specified under Regulation 4 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and the same shall be paid to the Liquidator from the proceeds of the liquidation estate under Section 53 of the Code.
c. Since this liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the Corporate Debtor without prior approval of this Adjudicating Authority save and except as mentioned in sub-section 6 of Section 33 of the Code.
d. This liquidation order shall be deemed to be notice of discharge to the officers, employees and workmen of the Corporate Debtor except to the extent of the business of the Corporate Debtor is continued during the liquidation process by the Liquidator.
The Registry is hereby directed to communicate this order to the parties, the Stock Exchanges where the shares of the company are listed and also to SEBI within seven days from the date order is made available.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1581
Deduction 80IB(10) - claim allowable for the profits of the project as a whole OR part of the project on a prorata basis - concept of proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) for the completed building or block of the project - whether Section 80IB(10)(a) stipulates the condition for the project as a whole and not individual units or flats of buildings? - CIT-A allowed proportionate claim - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly allowed the deduction u/s.80IB(10) to the assessee as it is undisputed fact that the assessee completed construction of 108 flats and obtained completion certificate for the same.
As per the Valuation Officer’s report, the assessee has complied with the conditions provided in section 80IB(10) and AO ignored the same and failed to comment on the eligibility of section 80IB(10) of the Act. AO failed to appreciate the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates (2011 (2) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) in the right perspective and chose to reproduce part of the judgment to his convenience to deny the claim of the assessee.
It is a settled legal proposition that the claim of deduction is allowable on pro-rata basis qua the complete part of the project. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act for the buildings B, C and D. We therefore, uphold the order of CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1580
Penalty levied u/s 271 [1](c) - addition on account of capital gain wrongly claimed as exempt by the assessee? - assessee had not offered the amount of tax on the basis of artificial dispute with mala fide intention and mere disclosure in notes did not protest the assessee from penal action provided under Section 271 [1](c) - HELD THAT:- Issue pertains to penalty. Quantum additions have been confirmed upto the stage of the Tribunal. The Department desired to levy penalty from the assessee. The Tribunal, however, deleted the penalty principally on the ground that the full disclosures were made and the issue was not free from doubt. In the opinion of the Tribunal, thus, the claim was not free from doubt or devoid of any basis.
We further notice that the assessee in addition to having made full disclosure, also claimed that he had been under legal advice. The Tribunal also noted that even in quantum additions, the appeal is entertained by the High Court and is pending. No question of law arises.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1579
Method of Valuation - clearance of physician samples intended for distribution free of cost to Doctors - appellants have discharged the duty on cost construction basis while Revenue sought to demand duty on the basis of MRP - Held that:- The issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals [2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that In so far as clearances of Physician samples on sale are concerned, the assessment is to be done under Section 4(1)(a). In so far as manufacture is done on job work basis the assessment is to be done.
The demand on the basis of MRP cannot, therefore, be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1578
Winding up petition - company has not commenced and has failed to hold the statutory meetings and to deliver statutory reports - default in filing with the Registrar its balance-sheet, profit and loss account or annual returns for five consecutive financial years - HELD THAT:- It a company can be wound up if a default is made in delivering the statutory report to the Registrar or in holding the statutory meetings and if the company does not commence its business within a year of incorporation or suspends its business for the whole year. Similarly, under section 433(d) of the Act of 1956, the company can be wound up if the number of members is reduced below two in case of a private company (as in the present case).
Under section 433(g), the company can be wound up if it has made default in filing with the Registrar its balance-sheet, profit and loss account or annual returns for five consecutive financial years. In considered view, the provisions of section 433(b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Act of 1956 would be attracted in this case and thus, it would be just and proper that the company is wound up. The fact that the company has not commenced and has failed to hold the statutory meetings and to deliver statutory reports, is explicit from the record, including the letter dated September 18, 2009 from Eric Sequeira.
As noticed earlier, there were only two shareholders/directors of the company namely, the petitioner and Shri Eric Sequeira and on the death of Mr. Secqueira, the number of members is reduced below two. Thus, the company, which is a private limited company, is liable to be wound up also under section 433(d) of the Act of 1956. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed
-
2018 (6) TMI 1577
Disallowance u/s. 80IA(4) - infrastructure development projects for and on behalf of the Government or local authorities - assessee undertaken road development project, for which, it had entered into an agreement with Gujarat State Road Development Corporation which was incorporated by the Government for the special purpose - HELD THAT:- As in AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 [2018 (5) TMI 1174 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] confirmed the orders passed by ITAT deleting disallowance and deduction made by the AO u/s 80IA(4) stating condition( b) of subsection (4) of section 80IA requires the assessee to have entered into agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory authority. However, rigid interpretation of this provision as canvassed by the Revenue would only result into the assessee involved in genuine infrastructure development projects for and on behalf of the Government or local authorities would be denied the deduction merely on the ground that the State Government had created a nodal agency for working out the finer details and nittygritty of such infrastructure development.
The purpose of creating such nodal agencies as well as the legislative intent of granting deduction to the assessee engaged in developing, maintaining or operating any infrastructure projects for Central or State Government or local or statutory authorities would frustrate. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1576
Deduction u/s 80P - respect of certain receipts, i.e. Electricity Commission, Bank Interest - HELD THAT:- Electricity Commission held allowable following BANGANGA NAGRI SAH. PATSANSTHA LTD. [2016 (4) TMI 473 - ITAT PUNE] - Bank Interest has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.[2005 (8) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] allowed in favour of assessee.
Allowability of deduction u/s 80P - interest receipts received out of deposits with MSEB and the Advertisement Income earned by the assessee, it is the claim of assessee that the said receipts are also entitled to the deduction - HELD THAT:- Considering the principle of parity with that of Electricity Commission and Bank Interest as such, there are no case laws filed by the assessee in respect of his claim for deduction in these receipts, nobody has examined the principle of parity as claimed by the assessee. The issues of MSEB Deposit Interest and Advertisement Income are set-aside to the file of AO with a direction to verify the nexus and admissibility of the claim of assessee in the light of above cited decisions by the assessee and adjudicate the same afresh. AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee while deciding the issues. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1575
Anticipatory bail - arrest of the petitioner by the respondents or their sub-ordinate officers pursuant to the summons dated 15.11.2017 - Held that:- The apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offence is a sine qua non to maintain a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been apprehending his arrest in any non-bailable offence and therefore, on the face of it, the provisions of Section 438 of CR.P.C. do not get attracted to the facts of this case. A reading of the summons issued by the respondents indicates that the petitioner has been asked to appear before the respondents in person along with the documents for inquiry in connection with service Tax matters - There is absolutely no basis for the petitioner to contend that he would be arrested by the authorities. The summons having been issued for the appearance of the petitioner, there are no justifiable reason to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Petition dismissed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1574
Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - AO resorted to the re-assessment on account of one reason - addition so consequently made stood deleted in the first appeal - HELD THAT:- The use of words ‘and’ between the income escaping assessment forming reasons to believe for issuing notice u/s 148 and other income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment and comes to the notice of the AO in the course of the proceeding, amply shows that the existence of the former is a pre-condition for taxing the latter.
To put it simply, if the grounds set out in the re-assessment notice are nonexistent, i.e., either no addition is made on such grounds or the addition so made does not pass the scrutiny by the appellate forums, then, obviously, no further addition can be made for income which comes to the notice of the AO during the course of proceedings u/s 147.
Without there being such a deterrent, the AO would acquire an unhindered power to initiate reassessment at the drop of a hat without any legally sustainable reasons and then make other additions resulting in multiplicity of proceedings, which the legislature has sought to curb. Any lawful jurisdiction to make addition on account of other incomes coming to the notice of the AO during the course of proceedings u/s 147 can be acquired only on the foundation of a validly acquired jurisdiction on legally sustainable items of income escaping assessment forming reasons for issuing notice u/s 148.
If the AO fails to acquire a valid jurisdiction to make reassessment on the basis of his reasons, then, he is also debarred from making additions for other incomes chargeable to tax which escaped assessment and come to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings u/s 147 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1573
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe escapement of income - Information of Non PAN AIR through CIB has been received that assessee has deposited cash- HELD THAT:-No such inquiry is evincible from the reasons recorded, as reproduced hereinabove. The AO, squarely, has not applied his mind to the information received, before recording the reasons.
There is no quarrel, as none can be, regarding immunity of the sufficiency or otherwise of material from examination by the Court. This matter stands adverted to in the preceding para. Next, concerning the nexus between the material and the formation of the belief, the reasons recorded do not show such a nexus. Inquiry by the AO is this nexus and perusal of the reasons shows this nexus or link to be missing in the present case. So, ‘M/s Ginni Filaments’ [2011 (3) TMI 1756 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] works in favour of the assessee, rather than against him.
The grievance of the assessee by way of ground is found to be justified. It is accepted as such. The reasons recorded by the AO are, thus, held to be null and void.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1572
Additions made on the ground of undervaluation of the sales - estimated GP and on the ground of clandestine removal of goods - HELD THAT:- Department preferred Tax Appeal and by the common judgment and order Division Bench of this Court having noted and considering the fact that the learned Tribunal ultimately deleted the additions primarily on the ground that by virtue of the judgment of the CESTAT, the excise show-cause notice was adjudicated in favour of the assessee and the CESTAT deleted the additions on excise side, and therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, Division Bench has confirmed the very common judgment and order but with respect to different Assessment years.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1571
Registration u/s 12AA cancelled - non charitable activities - Search & seizure action was carried out at the premises of the trust - incriminating documents revealed that the trust is run for the purposes of profit and not solely for educational purposes - Object of the trust - huge amount was collected from students, in cash without issuing any receipts and without entering them in the regular books of accounts - HELD THAT:- The authorities granting exemptions are duty bound to verify for any such violations. As the tax concessions involve a sacrifice of public revenue, it becomes imperative to ensure the tax concessions are not abused and enjoyed only by those charitable Trusts which actually deserve.
The assessee trust has carried its activities which invited the search and seizure action by the Revenue, which resulted in unearthing of evidences, inter alia, that the assessee collected huge amount from students, in cash , without issuing any receipts and without entering them in the regular books of accounts maintained by the trust.
When the assessee, a public charitable trust, has not kept clear and accurate accounts of the trust-property and failed to furnish with full and accurate information as to the impugned amount and state of the trust property, a finding was arrived that the impugned sum was lying with the Managing Trustee and others during the said period, which have not been used for the objects of the assessee trust. These facts have not been disproved. All these activities violate the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, the Income Tax Act etc and hence the assessee’s case clearly falls within the mischief of all the above clauses of Section 4 of the Indian Trusts Act. - Decided against assessee
Interest free advance given to sister concern - advances to prohibited persons - HELD THAT:- M/s Prathyusha Associates Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (PASPL), is a prohibited person, to whom ₹ 6 crore of the assessee’s money was advanced free-ofinterest etc are not disputed. Though, the assessee claimed to have ; advanced towards cost of construction of the buildings for the trust, awarded the contract to them on competitive bidding etc, it has not laid contemporaneous material substantiating its contentions before the Ld. PCIT as well as before the Ld. CIT(A)
When the payment was made to a prohibited person, when its rationale is being questioned, the onus is on the assessee to place adequate contemporaneous material to show that how it quantified the project costs and on whose advice, when and how it went for bidding , how many bids were received , whether the impugned person had adequate experience in similar projects but assessee not laid any such contemporaneous material.
As regards the payment to Ms Prathyusha, the daughter of Managing Trustee the Appellant had not produced any documentary evidence as to the functioning of the lady, nature of work allotted to her, what are the official matters which she attends everyday etc., and as to how such a huge salary of ₹ 4,92,000 is reasonable. In the circumstances the action of the AO does not warrant any interference. - decided against assessee
-
2018 (6) TMI 1570
Addition u/s 68 - summons was sent to the Directors of the assessee company as well as Directors of the investing companies but none of them appeared - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S. SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WD 9 (4). KOLKATA [2018 (3) TMI 1403 - ITAT KOLKATA] it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue in dispute and restore the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and after taking into consideration the entire evidence already available on record as well as other documentary evidence which the assessee may choose to file in support of its case on the issue.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1569
Disallowance u/s 43B - Held that:- As assessee claimed that the impugned amount was not debited to profit & loss account and further was not claimed as expenditure and thus cannot be added under section 43B of the Act. This fact was claimed to be expressly stated in the tax audit report at annexure-VII to clause 21(Business)(i) & (ii). This factual aspect was not controverted by the Revenue. There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that such expenses has not been claimed by the assessee, therefore, the addition was rightly deleted, consequently, we affirm the stand of the CIT (Appeal).
Disallowance on account of rent payment - assessee explained that the office space was shared between the assessee and its group affiliates as per clause -14 of the agreement on assignment - Held that:- Since, the office was utilized for business purposes, which is even not disputed by the Assessing Officer, pursuant to an agreement and TDS was deducted under section 194-I as per leave and license agreement dated 29/06/2007 entered between M/s TAG Enterprises and M/s Brnad Marketing India Pvt. Ltd., the licensor permitted the licensee M/s Brand Marketing India Ltd., the right to assign the premises as per clause-14 of the agreement, which has been reproduced in the impugned order and uncontroverted fact that above two group companies along with the assessee shared the premises and the rent/amenities, therefore, it is an allowable expenditure. The stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is affirmed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1568
TPA - inclusion of E-Infochips Limited as comparable - Held that:- Margins of E-Infochips Limited cannot be applied to benchmark the international transactions undertaken by the assessee with it’s A.Es.
We further find that in case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Philips India Limited (2017 (12) TMI 1117 - ITAT KOLKATA) and Ness Technologies (India) Private Limited (2016 (11) TMI 1402 - ITAT MUMBAI), which were also engaged in the activities similar to assessee (i.e., providing software services to its group concerns based on the specifications provided) in A.Y. 2011-12, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, while deciding those appeals directed the exclusion of E-Infochips Limited as a comparable company.
E-Infochips Limited cannot be considered as comparable to arrive at Arms Length Price and therefore we direct its exclusion from comparables. Before us, it is assessee’s contention that if E-Infochips Limited is excluded from the final set of comparables, the margin of the assessee would fall within + 5% range vis-à-vis margin of the residual comparables and thus in view of proviso to Sec.92C(2) of the Act, no addition would survive and therefore even other grounds raised would be rendered infructuous. We therefore direct the AO to re-compute the margins of comparables by excluding E-Infochips Limited from the list of comparables and thereafter compute the TP adjustment, if any, in the hands of assessee. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1567
Deduction u/s. 80IB(11A) on the portion of the eligible business profit enhanced on account of disallowances under s. 40A(3) - Held that:- Enhanced deduction under s.80IB(11A) owing to increase in eligible profits in view of the disallowances made u/s 43B amounting to ₹ 42,07,953/-. It is the case on behalf of the assessee that the assessee is eligible for corresponding deduction under s.80IB(11A) on account of disallowances made in the assessment 40A(3) and 43B of the Act since the eligible profit stood enhanced due to such disallowance.
As submitted on behalf of the assessee, we find that CBDT has addressed the aforesaid issue in favour of the assessee as per its Circular no.37/2016 dated 2nd November, 2016. As per the aforesaid circular, the Board has accepted the proposition that disallowances so made under s.40A(3), 43B etc. of the Act related to business activity would be eligible for chapter VI-A deduction in view of the enhancement of the profits of the eligible business. In view of the CBDT Circular, the controversy stands settled in view of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1566
Undisclosed receipts - Difference in receipts as per the books of account and as per 26AS - assessee explained the discrepancy in the receipts being the service tax which was not included in the part of turnover recorded in the books of account whereas the TDS was deducted by the payer on the amount which includes the service tax - Held that:- If the assessee is showing the total receipts in the books of account on the basis of bill raised and the service tax return was filed on the basis of amount collected or actual receipt then the explanation of the assessee cannot be faulted with in respect of the amount of difference between the total receipts shown in the books and the receipts shown in the service tax return. The assessee has furnished reconciliation explaining the cause of discrepancy in the receipt shown in the 26AS statement and the ld CIT(A) has reproduced the entire list of 91 transactions where the TDS was deducted on the amount including the service tax whereas the assessee has shown the receipts in the books excluding the service tax
CIT(A) has considered specific fact of discrepancy in the amount shown in the 26AS in comparison to the books of account. The bills including service tax were raised and the TDS was deducted inclusive of service tax amount of ₹ 1,61,36,763/-. The revenue has not brought any fact or material to contradict the factual details recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby upheld. - Decided against revenue
-
2018 (6) TMI 1565
TP adjustment made u/s 92CA(3) - determination of arm's length price of transactions pertaining to payment of fees for advisory and other services by the assessee to its associated enterprises - MAM selection - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case [2017 (12) TMI 1568 - ITAT PUNE] tribunal held that TNMM method was the most appropriate method to be applied to benchmark international transactions undertaken by the assessee by taking foreign associated enterprises as tested party and further, the Tribunal held that the said transaction of fees paid for advisory and other services was to be benchmarked by comparing the margins of tested party i.e. foreign associated enterprises with margins of external comparables selected by the assessee, who were also engaged in providing similar advisory and related services to its entities. However, for the limited purpose of verification that the margins shown by tested party i.e. foreign associated enterprise was at arm's length price of margins shown by comparables selected by the assessee, the matter was remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer / TPO for verification.
The issue arising in the present appeal before us is similar to the issue which arose in earlier year and since the international transactions undertaken by the assessee were identical to the international transactions undertaken in earlier years, hence following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that TNMM method was the most appropriate method to be applied to benchmark arm's length price of international transactions of fees paid for advisory and other services by taking foreign associated enterprise as tested party. AO is directed to benchmark the transactions by taking margins of foreign comparables which were selected by the assessee in earlier year and even in the year under consideration. However, to verify the claim of assessee that the margins shown by assessee and the mean margins shown by the comparables were within +/- 5% range, the Assessing Officer is directed to comply with the directions of Tribunal as in earlier year and compute arm's length price of international transactions.
Comparable selection - Held that:- The assessee provides Oracle software support services to Emerson Climate Technologies Incorporation, USA (AE). It is back office support activity in the nature of IT enabled services (ITes). It has earned a mark-up of 10.20% on cost. Thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Companies fluctuating margins is to be excluded from final set of comparables.
Additional depreciation of 10% claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) on the assets which had been added to the block of Plant & Machinery during financial year 2011-12 relevant to 2012-13 - Held that:- As relying on case of CIT Vs. Rittal India ( P.) Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] the assessee is entitled to claim balance additional depreciation @10% of the value of asset added to the block of Plant and Machinery during Financial year 2011-12 on account of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1564
Non-payment of the salary of staff of the petitioners institutions - petitioners were told to file an undertaking that upon receipt of the amount from the State Government, they shall first disburse the salaries of their staff before clearing any other claims - defeating the legitimate dues of the teachers - Held that:- It is not for this court to express any opinion on whether the amount, which is brought in this court, can be taken away by the Management or can the State Government be permitted to adjust the same towards its other dues or the amount as such constitutes the dues of either the Department of Income Tax or the secured creditors to whom, admittedly, the petitioner says, it owes certain money. Equally, we find that merely because an undertaking is given to this court in this writ petition and the amount is brought in this court and from which appropriations and adjustments will now be made does not mean the legal and statutory powers and rights of those, who are not before this court, cannot be adversely affected. These rights cannot be said to be prejudiced, much less adversely by any order in these petitions.
Since the amount has now been credited to the account of the State of Maharashtra and the account of this court in the RBI is now debited, as is clear from the certificate tendered today, let the State Government retain that sum till 5th July, 2018 with it without making any adjustment or appropriation towards its outstanding dues nor it should remit the same to the Management - matters placed on 5th July, 2018.
............
|
9911796707
