|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1434 Records
-
2021 (8) TMI 1154
Sanction of scheme of amalgamation - seeking to dispense with the requirement of holding the meeting of the equity shareholders, preference shareholders and creditors of the Transferor Company and Transferee Company - Section 232 read with Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 and read with Rule 3 of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- This is the first stage Application seeking dispensation of convening meetings of Equity Shareholders, preference shareholders and Creditors of the Applicant Companies. All of them have given their consent in the form of Affidavits. The proposed scheme in question prima facie satisfy fundamental requirements for its sanction, subject to approval of this Tribunal - The Applicant Companies stated to be following all provisions of Companies Act, 2013, and rules made thereunder. In any case, dispensing with meeting in question would not deprive any aggrieved party to approach this Tribunal at any point of time, when the approval of scheme in question finally come for consideration.
The Company application deserves to be allowed - The scheme is sanctioned.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1153
Seeking to order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor - Section 33(2) r/w Section 60 of the I & B Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Professional and the COC of the Corporate Debtor, have made their best efforts to find a suitable Resolution Plan to revive the business of the Corporate Debtor. However, in the absence of any Resolution Plan received, there is no other alternative for the COC except to seek to order to liquidate the Corporate Debtor as per the provisions of the Code. The Resolution to initiate liquidation was also approved by the COC in its 7th meeting held on 24th May 2021, with requisite majority and the instant Application is filed strictly in accordance with law.
M/s. Antal Infotech Private Limited, Corporate Debtor is ordered to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter III of Part II of Code, R/w IBBI (Liquidation process) Regulations, 2016 - the scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1152
CENVAT Credit - appellant did not produce the original copy of the Bills of Entry for verification before the department - HELD THAT:- When the matter was called for hearing, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Customs Authorities, certifying that appropriate duty liability had already been discharged in respect of the goods imported under the disputed Bills of Entry. It is evident that the duty paid character of the goods and receipt of the same in the factory for use in the intended purpose have been duly complied with.
On the strength of the certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Customs Authorities, the cenvat benefit should be available to the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1151
Dissolution of Corporate Person - affairs of the Corporate Person have been completely wound up and its assets having completely liquidated - Section 59(7) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The requirement of the provisions of Section 59, read with the relevant rules, have been satisfied by the Liquidator - Since there is no liability on the Company and no fraud has been found against it either by the Auditors in their report or by the Liquidator, particularly, in the absence of any response from the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal and the Official Liquidator, the dissolution of the Company Manraj Tradecom Private Ltd. is ordered.
The Company, Manraj Tradecom Private Limited, stands dissolved under Section 59(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, from the date of the Order - application allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1150
Seeking re-initiation of the matter before the Hon'ble Tribunal for further proceedings - seeking appointment of a Liquidator - seeking direction to Liquidator to take steps towards recovery of Loan Advanced - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has failed to produce any provision of law by which this Adjudicating Authority is empowered to review its own order. Since the Liquidation proceeding has already been terminated by this Adjudicating Authority vide and the file has been consigned to the record room, there is no scope to review the Order dated 09th January, 2020 at this stage.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1149
Sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation - Section 230(6) read with Section 232(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- There appears to be no impediment in sanctioning the present Scheme. Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme under section 230 & 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 upon the directions issued.
The application is allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1148
Sanction of Scheme of Arrangement (demerger) - Section 230(6) read with Section 232(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Various directions with regard to holding, convening and dispensation with various meetings issued - directions regarding issuance of various notices also issued.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1147
Addition u/s 40A(2) - unreasonable professional fees to spouse - commission/professional fees paid the husband of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Once the assessee has placed all the relevant materials before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee's spouse is having specialized knowledge and looking after all the medical, technical and administration of all the Hitech Diagnostic Centre and discharge all the duties and responsibilities in conducting various tests and therefore, the agreed payment was made, in our opinion, the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon her to satisfy with the payment is reasonable as per the MOU. If at all the AO is not agreed, he should have brought comparable case and by giving reasons, the disallowance ought to have been made. Assessing Officer has not examined any details and has not given any valid reason and no comparable was brought on record and simply rejected the submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(2) of the Act is not correct.
Unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C - CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee has paid professional fees to her husband. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed anything about the 69C addition. Once the assessee has shown payment made to her spouse as professional fees and the same was offered by the assessee's spouse for taxation by filing the return of income, the provisions of section 69C of the Act has no application.
Whether the assessee is in default under section 201 of the Act on account of failure to deduct TDS under section 194J of the Act warranting invocation of section 40a(ia)? - whether the operation of second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act introduced through Finance Act. 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 is prospective or retrospective? - The effect of the said proviso is to introduce a legal fiction where an assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII B. Where such assessee is deemed not to be an assessee in default in terms of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act, then, in such event, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the same of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso. In the present case, the assessee's spouse filed return of income offering the professional fee receipt for taxation. Thus, the assessee cannot be considered as an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
Addition on account of capital gains - according to the assessee, the capital gain has to be taxed in the assessee and her spouse in the assessment year 2013-14 and not in the assessment year 2009-10 - HELD THAT:- The case of the Assessing Officer is that the acquisition as well as sale consideration received by her and recorded in her books of accounts and therefore, the same is taxed in her hands alone. We have gone through the sale agreement and find that in the sale agreement, both the wife and husband i.e., the assessee and her spouse are vendees. Not only that, the said property was purchased by the assessee along with her husband. The transaction towards sale consideration reflected in her books of account. It does not mean that the same is taxed in assessee's hands alone for the reason that the assessee along with her husband both purchased the property and both entered into sale agreement.
Whether capital gain has to be taxed in the assessment year 2009-10 or in the assessment year 2013-14 - Before the authorities below, the AR of the assessee has not filed copy of the assessment order of the assessee reflecting the advance tax paid by her when she has offered the sale consideration for taxation. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that once the Assessing Officer has already taxed the same amount in the assessment year 2013-14, again it cannot be taxed in the assessment year 2009-10, which amounts to double taxation. Therefore, we set aside the orders of authorities below on this issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by considering the above observations after affording sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1146
Valuation - SSI Exemption - inclusion of value of goods destroyed in flood in the aggregate value of clearance or not - HELD THAT:- N/N. 08/2003 in para 2(vii) and para 3 clearly indicate that “aggregate value of clearance” for home consumption by a manufacturer is to be taken into account and admittedly para 3 has categorised 3 exclusions wherein damage by fire is not found mention. However, going by the strict literal interpretation of para 3 and 2(vii), it is crystal clear that only “clearances for home consumption” is to be taken into account and goods destroyed by fire were not clear for home consumption on any point of time but was directed by the insurance company to be destroyed as were unfit for consumption as revealed from the insurance settlement letter at page 30 of the appeal memo.
The value of such damaged goods, which were never cleared for home consumption, cannot be added to the total turnover - appeal allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1145
Disallowance of expenses and interest - assessee though appeared in person on two occasions but did not furnish any supporting bills/vouchers - CIT(A) has deleted the addition towards interest by observing that the same cannot be disallowed without proper verification - HELD THAT:- Observation of the CIT(A) is not correct inasmuch as it was the assessee who did not furnish any details of the expenses including interest paid to others. There can be several reasons for the disallowance of interest.
When the AO required the assessee to furnish the relevant details, it was the assessee who was at fault. AR submitted that the assessee had to shift its business premises because it was required to surrender under lock and key to the bank. No doubt, the assessee put in its appearance twice before the AO but did not furnish books of account which could have enabled the AO to examine and verify the details. AO in such circumstances should have found out a reasonable amount of deductible expenses on a certain parameter rather than disallowing the entire expense.
Neither the AO was justified in making total disallowance of expenses nor the CIT(A) was justified in coming to the conclusion that no interest disallowance could be made without proper verification and further deleting disallowance by 90% of the remaining expenses. On a pertinent query, the ld. AR submitted that the books of account and vouchers, which were earlier under lock and key of the bank, are now available and can be produced before the AO. - Matter remanded back.
Penalty u/s.271(1)(b) - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO imposed penalty on account of failure of the assessee to put in any appearance and furnishing the necessary evidence - the premises of the assessee was under lock and key of the bank. Despite that, the assessee put in its appearance twice before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Evidence could not be furnished because it was not available at the material time - no penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) can be imposed because there was a ‘reasonable cause’ in terms of section 273B of the Act for not producing the evidence.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1144
Reversal of cenvat credit - inputs used for the output goods supplied to BHEL - Job-Work - exemption availed under N/N. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - applicability of rule 14 of the cenvat credit rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Rule 9(1) applies when the appellant took credit for the first time, before reversing the same on the instructions of the Superintendent. When the appellant took suo-moto re-credit, the same amounts to only correction of accounts, to which Rule 9(1) has no application - it is held that Rule 6(6) is squarely applicable in the present case, and therefore the credit was rightly taken by the appellant. On this conclusion, it is held that reversal of credit was not required and hence the demand of cenvat credit, interest and penalty under rule 14 of the cenvat credit rules, 2004 cannot be sustained. The orders passed by the lower authorities regarding demand of cenvat credit, interest and penalty are therefore set-aside.
The amount of ₹ 18,86,138/- deposited by the appellant consequent to rejection of stay application by this Tribunal, is directed to be refunded along with interest in accordance with law. The interest is held payable u/s 35FF from the date of deposit to the date of Refund @12% p.a. - appeal allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1143
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - suo moto disallowance by assessee - mandation of recording satisfaction - whether AO has recorded any dissatisfaction as regards suo-moto disallowance made by the appellant ? - HELD THAT:- Though it is incumbent upon the Ld. AO to record a satisfaction as to why the disallowance offered by the assessee was not sufficient which is sine qua non before proceeding to apply Rule 8D. Although there is no particular format or manner in which the satisfaction was to be recorded but the same should have been discernible from the order passed by the Ld. AO. We make it clear that no observation, howsoever, has been made as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee -no irregularities in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting such addition made by the Ld. AO in the absence of any dissatisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO as regards the amount of disallowance computed by the appellant under Section 14A without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference - Decided against revenue.
Appellate authority had the power to admit the new ground - ESOP compensation expenses during assessment proceeding as the said claim was not made while filing of return of income by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Since the appellate authority had the power to admit the new ground or a legal contention in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex, [2014 (4) TMI 484 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the said claim has been admitted by the Ld. CIT(A).
No explanation is forthcoming as to how without verifying the records as regards the actual expenses incurred by the appellant’s claim has been allowed - As considered the order passed in the case of Biocon Ltd.[2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE] where it has been held that ESOP compensation expenditure is not a notional expenditure but an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) - object of issuing of shares at a lower issue price than the market price to the employees under ESOP must be taken into consideration and thereby it cannot be treated as short receipt of securities premium but a cost on account of compensation of employees - as principally the claim on account of deduction of ESOP compensation is allowable but in our considered opinion it would be in the fitness of things to remit the issue to the file of the Ld. AO to verify the actual expenses incurred by the appellant - Assessee’s claim is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1142
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - as per CIT disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was not at all considered or examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- As observed that a specific opportunity was given by the Ld. Pr. CIT to the assessee-company to offer its explanation on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D during the course of proceedings u/s 263. The assessee-company however did not avail this opportunity by offering any satisfactory explanation and as noted by the Ld. Pr. CIT in his impugned order, a very cryptic remark was made by the assessee in answer to every query raised in the notice issued u/s 263.
As submitted by CIT DR, this issue relating to the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was not at all examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and there is nothing brought on record on behalf of the assessee-company to show that any enquiry whatsoever was made by the AO on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings.
As held in the case of CIT vs Maithan International [2015 (4) TMI 479 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the role of the Assessing Officer is that of an investigator as well as adjudicator and where relevant enquiry was not undertaken before allowing the claim of the assessee, the order become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue calling for revision u/s 263 - as specifically provided in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below Section 263, if in the opinion of Pr. CIT, an order passed by the AO is without making enquiries or verifications, which should have been made, the same shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of Section 263 calling for exercise of revisionary power. - Decided against assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1141
GP estimation - Rejection of books of accounts - fresh estimation of gross profit of 13% by the ld CIT(A) in the second round of litigation - G.P rate of 15.42% has already been applied by CIT(A) which has been upheld by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation - HELD THAT:- AO has made an addition towards unverified purchases to revised total income as computed after giving appeal effect u/s 143(3)/250 dated 16.02.2007 to order passed by the ld CIT(A) wherein he has estimated G.P rate of 15.42% - addition of ₹ 15,39,905/- is made over and above the G.P addition made in the first round of litigation wherein G.P rate has been taken at 15.42% as against 12.14% declared by the assessee.
CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition as we have noted above as there cannot be separate addition other than estimation of profits where the books of accounts have been rejected. CIT(A) has estimated G.P @ 13% failing to take into the consideration the fact that G.P has already been estimated earlier @ 15.42% and which has been accepted by both the parties and has attained finality and necessary effect given to by the AO while passing the impugned assessment order. In the contention so advanced by the AR and the addition so sustained by the ld CIT(A) amounting is hereby directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1140
Understatement of income - treatment of lease transactions as sales transaction - - Transfer of property under lease - Lease deed is unregistered one - efficacy of registration of lease deed and the impact of the same when it is unregistered one - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. C.F.Raju [2006 (6) TMI 509 - KERALA HIGH COURT] had followed the judgment of case of Anthony v. K.C.Ittoop & Sons [2000 (7) TMI 970 - SUPREME COURT] and held that even though the lease deed is unregistered, the same would not stand in the way to determine whether there is in fact a lease.
In the instant case, the assessee is a statutory body constituted u/s 5 of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (IIADB Act), 1966. The KIADB Act, 1966 is a special Act, which provides for expeditious acquisition of land for industrial and infrastructure purposes. The Income Tax Authorities has not doubted the legal effect of the lease deed (being unregistered one). When the lease is transfer of right to enjoy the property, such transfer can be made expressly or by implication. The mere fact that it is an unregistered lease deed would not stand in the way to determine whether in fact it was a transfer of property under lease - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1139
Levy of VAT - traded goods (STB and remote) - purchase price treated as sale price - taxing the loss sustained by the Petitioner on sale of the set- up box - non-traded goods brought in by the Petitioner through Form ‘ F’ from other States by way of stock transfer and installed on entrustment basis without any consideration in the customer premises - HELD THAT:- It appears that the learned Tribunal has committed serious errors on material facts which includes the finding that the Set Top Boxes that were sold to the customers were a part of non-traded goods although, it was the specific case of the petitioner, that it was sold by the petitioner on which VAT was paid and does not form a part of non-trading goods. This Court further finds that the learned Tribunal has not considered the subscription contract which is the foundational document in connection with the transactions involved in the present cases.
This Court is of the view that the subscription contract of the relevant period as well as the Provisions of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the regulations framed thereunder, by which the petitioner was governed even at the relevant point of time, are required to be scrutinized and considered by the Tribunal to come to a correct finding in connection with subscription contract of the petitioner with its consumers - This Court is also of the view that the factual errors which have been committed by the learned Tribunal are required to be taken care of by the learned Tribunal at the first instance for arriving at a considered decision. This Court is not inclined to rectify such factual errors, which has been committed by the learned Tribunal, in writ jurisdiction.
This Court is of the considered view that these matters are fit for remand before the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law - the matters are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1138
Dishonor of cheque - maintainability of appeal - correctness of acquittal of accused - Allegation is that the complainant has misused the signed cheque which was kept in the office of the accused was stolen - Whether the appeal lies against the order of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court or whether the revision lies as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent? - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, there are divergent findings given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and hence, an appeal lies under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. and the complainant has rightly filed the appeal and the question of filing the revision does not arise as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and the very contention that the revision lies cannot be accepted since, there is a clear bar to invoke Revisional jurisdiction when there is a provision for filing an appeal. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal is not maintainable cannot be accepted - question answered in negative.
Whether the First Appellate Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is the specific case of the complainant that he had lent money to the accused on 15.10.2006 and in order to repay the said loan the accused had issued a cheque on 25.01.2007. When the cheque was presented it was dishonoured with a shara ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant has relied upon document Ex.P1-cheque. The accused did not dispute his signature available on Ex.P1. The complainant also relied upon Ex.P3-legal notice and the said notice was sent to the residential address of the accused Kurubarahalli and also to his driving school - The accused has to lead plausible evidence before the Court and this Court has taken note of the evidence of DW1 that his evidence cannot be believed and the same is not trustworthy and he makes an attempt to give evading answer in the cross-examination in respect of other two cases filed against him for cheque bouncing. Though he denies, he admits that two cases are filed against him in the cross-examination and hence his evidence is not credible.
The statutory presumption available is in favour of the complainant. The other observation made by the appellate court that when the amount is paid in excess of ₹ 20,000/- and the said amount to be paid through cheque only under the Income Tax Act also cannot be accepted. Here, the transaction is between friends and both of them having acquaintance with each other and also running Crackers’ Chit. P.W.1 claims he was an agent and D.W.1 claims he was a Director - the appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accused rebutted the evidence of the complainant and in the cross-examination PW1, nothing is elicited except they are good friends and the complainant was also visiting the driving school of the accused. Hence, the appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the finding of the trial Court without drawing presumption available in favour of the complainant. Therefore, nothing inspires this Court that the evidence led by the accused amounts to rebutting the evidence of the complainant.
In the case on hand also, the accused has admitted the cheque available in Ex.P1 and failed to rebut the presumptions and nothing is placed before the Court and no cogent evidence to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Hence, the presumption is in favour of the complainant. Unless, a contrary evidence is placed before the Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no transaction and the cheque has been stolen and misused cannot be accepted. Hence, the approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and it requires interference by this Court.
Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1137
Review petition - Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit - compensation cess - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that there is no error of record as such, but the review petitioner is seeking review by placing certain so-called communication of resolution comment to the writ petitioner (annexure-2 to the review petitions) by stating that the same were not produced in the writ records due to inadvertence. This Court is of the considered view that bringing the so-called communication of resolution comment to the writ petitioner (annexure-2 to the review petitions) by filing the same in the review petition for the first time, cannot be a ground for review. It is not the case of the review petitioners that so-called communication proof, if any, was not within their knowledge at the time of filing of the counter affidavit in the writ petition.
Failure to place so called communication of resolution comment in writ record due to inadvertence, cannot be a ground for review - this Court is of the considered view that no ground for review has been made out.
These review petitions are dismissed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1136
Seeking grant of Bail - issuance of fake invoices - Offences punishable u/s 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In this case, nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court indicating the fact that the petitioner, who was all along in custody has contributed to the delay of conclusion of the trial, rather the order of the Magistrate speaks that the complainant is not producing the witnesses, as such, the delay. In such premises, even if right to be released on bail for such delay under the provision, is not an absolute right in view of the first proviso inasmuch as in appropriate cases, the detention of the Petitioner for a longer period can be ordered, even if he has undergone more than one-half of the sentence prescribed, but such discretion should be used to deny the benefit under Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. when the accused mischievously or purposefully delaying the trial and the delay in disposal is attributable to him.
This Court extending the benefit of mandate of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. directs the trial Court to release the Petitioner on bail in the case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper - Application allowed.
-
2021 (8) TMI 1135
Requirement to deposit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee - conversion of the petitioner from ‘Partnership Firm’ to ‘Limited Liability Partnership’ - permission to reflect such change of name in the revenue record granted - HELD THAT:- In view of provisions of Section 58(4)(b) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, consequent upon conversion of firm to limited liability partnership, there is automatic vesting/transfer of all assets of firm to the LLP - Sub-section (4) of Section 58 of LLP Act starts with non- obstante clause ‘notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force’. Therefore, principles of statutory vesting of properties will apply to the instant case as well.
Necessity of execution of an instrument upon conversion of a partnership firm to limited liability partnership - HELD THAT:- Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act talks about the instruments, which are chargeable with duties.Once there is no instrument of transfer of assets of erstwhile partnership firm to LLP, then question of payment of stamp duty and registration charges on it does not arise.
The registration fee is payable on an instrument compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Once there is no transfer of immovable property under an instrument, then the question of compulsory registration of that non-existent instrument and payment of stamp duty on it is not warranted. Neither the stamp duty nor the registration fee, therefore, is payable in such circumstances.
Whether conversion of firm to LLP involves change in constitution? - HELD THAT:- Conversion of petitioner-firm to LLP is admittedly without any consideration. Neither any sale deed nor any conveyance deed has been executed. Transfer of assets of erstwhile partnership firm to LLP is by operation of law. Conversion to LLP is normally undertaken for restructuring exercises. One of the object of Limited Liability Partnership Act is to view it as an alternative corporate business vehicle providing the benefits of limited liability, while allowing its members the flexibility of organizing their internal structure as a partnership, based on a mutually arrived agreement.
Petition allowed.
............
|
9911796707
