|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 2152 Records
-
2018 (9) TMI 1855
Rectification application u/s 254 - petition beyond the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Miscellaneous Petition was filed beyond the period of six months. There is no provision for condonation of delay in filing the petition, therefore, the belated petition filed by the assessee beyond the period of six months cannot be entertained. Hence, the same is dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1854
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) - disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in respect of interest expenditure - assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported as [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that where both interest free funds and interest bearing funds are available and the interest free funds are more than the investment made, the presumption is that the investment is made out of interest free funds available with the assessee. The said decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the context of Section 36(1)(iii). The Hon'ble High Court, thereafter, applied the same principle while interpreting the provisions of section 14A in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] .The Hon'ble High Court observed that where investment is made in tax free securities by the assessee, it would be presumed to have been made from own funds in case they are in excess of investment made.
Thus disallowance in respect of interest expenditure made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is deleted. The impugned order is modified, accordingly, the ground raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1853
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - A.O. rejected the claim of the long term capital gain and charged the same @ 30% as income from other sources as undisclosed income - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee in this case is engaged into the purchase and sale of shares. The assessee has offered the gain as long term capital gain chargeable @ 10%. A.O., on the other hand, made certain enquiries and came to the conclusion that on the economic and financial parameter, the huge gain was not justified.
Hence, quoting the case laws on the subject of preponderance of probability, A.O. rejected the claim of the long term capital gain and charged the same @ 30% as income from other sources as undisclosed income. In this regard, the submission of the assessee is that all the documents in support of the genuineness of the transactions were submitted. The assessee has duly offered the gain to tax. Hence, it is the assessee’s submission that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find it gainful to refer to the decision of the ITAT in the quantum addition wherein while confirming, the ITAT had held that the genuineness of the transaction was not proved if not actually disproved.
No defect was found in the documentation supporting the transaction and the ITAT had gave a finding that the assessee’s explanation was unproved but not disproved. In identical situation in the case of Upendra vs. Mithani [2009 (8) TMI 1159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that in these circumstances, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
In the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. [2013 (3) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that no penalty is leviable where there is only a change of head of income. The assessee deserves to succeed on the touch stone of this case law also.
In this case the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained as firstly the addition is based upon the theory of preponderance of probability and defect in the documentation for claim of long term capital gain, per se have not been found to be defective.
Similarly as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nayan Builders (supra) when substantial question of law is admitted in the quantum appeal by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the issue becomes debatable and penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1852
Stay of demand - protection against collection and recovery - HELD THAT:- If that demand is under dispute and is subject to the appellate proceedings, then, the right of appeal vested in the petitioner/assessee by virtue of the Statute should not be rendered illusory and nugatory. That right can very well be defeated by such communication from the Revenue/Department as is impugned before us. That would mean that if the amount as directed by the impugned communication being not brought in, the petitioner may not have an opportunity to even argue his Appeal on merits or that Appeal will become infructuous, if the demand is enforced and executed during its pendency. In that event, the right to seek protection against collection and recovery pending Appeal by making an application for stay would also be defeated and frustrated. Such can never be the mandate of law.
In the circumstances, we dispose both these petitions with directions that the Appellate Authority shall conclude the hearing of the Appeals as expeditiously as possible and during pendency of these Appeals, the petitioner/appellant shall not be called upon to make payment of any sum, much less to the extent of 20% under the Assessment Order/Confirmed Demand or claim to be outstanding by the Revenue.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1851
TP adjustments - whether License Fees and Management Fees transactions are a separate class of transactions and are not closely linked with the transaction relating to manufacture and export of drug formulations to Adcock Ingram Health Care (Pty) Ltd. South Africa ('AIHPL') - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in the analysis carried out by the TPO by benchmarking the licence fee. In fact assessee by aggregation of transactions in the TP study had benchmarked the arm's length price of all the transactions by comparing operating profit/operating cost at the entity level was 25.49% as against the non-AE it was 5.26%. However, we observe that the comparability analysis in the TP study carried out by the assessee by aggregation of transactions adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method has not been examined by either of the authorities below who have merely concentrated merely on the issue of aggregation/segregation of transactions.
CIT (A) has mechanically accepted the results of the assessee to be at arm's length by accepting the operating profit/operating cost of the assessee as 25.49% as against non-AE at 5.26%. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A) for examining the correctness of the ALP at the entity level by applying the TNMM as the most appropriate method by aggregating the transactions. CIT (A) is directed to take the remand report from the TPO in this regard and afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter.
ALP adjustments in respect of the payment of fees for technical services - arm's length price of these services was NIL under the CUP method, the TPO had to necessarily demonstrate that the same services, whatever be its intrinsic worth, were available for NIL consideration in an uncontrolled situation; that is not, and that cannot be, the case. It is also not the case of the authorities below that the arm's length price of these services, under any other legally permissible method is, NIL There is thus no legally sustainable foundation for the impugned ALP adjustment. We observe that the comparability analysis in the TP study carried out by the assessee by aggregation of transactions adopting TNMM as the most appropriate method has not been examined by either of the authorities below who have merely concentrated merely on the issue of aggregation/segregation of transactions.
CIT (A) has mechanically accepted the results of the assessee to be at arm's length by accepting the operating profit / operating cost of the assessee as 25.49% as against non-AE at 5.26%. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A) for examining the correctness of the ALP at the entity level by applying the TNMM as the most appropriate method by aggregating the transactions. CIT (A) is directed to take the remand report from the TPO in this regard and afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter
ALP at the entity level by applying TNMM as the MAM by aggregating the transactions - HELD THAT:- We deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) / TPO in the matter and remand this issue to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for examining the correctness of the ALP at the entity level by applying TNMM as the MAM by aggregating the transactions. CIT (Appeals) is directed to obtain a remand report from the TPO in this regard and afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard in the matter and to file details / submissions required which shall be considered before deciding this issue. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee at S.No.2 is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1850
Addition on account of bad debts - HELD THAT:- Assessee is eligible for claiming bad debts as it was provided to M/s. Roopa Plastics Technology Pvt Ltd in the course of money lending business. Thus, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, these grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
Addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- There remains no ambiguity that own-funds of the assessee is exceeded the investment as discussed above. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of UTI Bank Ltd. . [2013 (8) TMI 238 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has observed that where sufficient interest-free funds are available to meet the amount of investment then no disallowance on account of interest expenses is warranted under section 14A r.w.r. 8D of Income Tax Rules.
Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) - Assessee failed to bring anything contrary to the findings of the Hon’ble ITAT as discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for ₹ 6,36,463/- only. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
MAT computation - Disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB as per the direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 1169 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]
Disallowance as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB independently on account of dividend income. However, we also note that there is no mechanism given under the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB to workout/ determine the disallowance. Therefore in the given facts & circumstances, we feel that ad-hoc disallowance will service the justice to the Revenue and assessee. Therefore to put the dispute to rest in given facts & circumstances, we direct for the ad-hoc disallowance to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and unnecessary litigation. Thus we direct the AO to make the disallowance of ₹ 5 Lacs under clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act.
This fact on record that we have restored other cases involving identical issues to the file of AO for making the disallowance as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB independently. But now we are of the view that as there is no mechanism provided under the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act to make the disallowance independently, therefore there would be unnecessarily further litigation, if the matter is sent back to the file of AO.
Thus, we propose to limit the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis for ₹ 5 Lacs as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB. Thus the ground of appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1849
Permission to withdraw the petition - liberty sought is to file a fresh Petition in the name of the Companies whose bank accounts have been freezed - HELD THAT:- The liberty as sought for, is granted - The Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1848
Waiver of penalty - Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency Services or manufacture - respondent not registered with the Department for rendering the service - non-payment of service tax - whether the authorities below could take recourse to Section 80 of the Finance Act 1994 in order to waive the penalty levied under Section 76,77,78 and 80 of the Finance Act 1994?
HELD THAT:- The supply of manpower cannot be said to be process which directly related to actual production. There is no inter connection between supply of labour and the manufacture by the service recepient. Manufacture is defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - A process is a manufacturing process that it brings out a complete transformation for the whole components so as to produce a commercial diffferent article of commodity. Though it is well settled that the process itself may consist of several processes which may or may not bring about any agency at intermediate stage, but the activities or the operation may be so integrally connected with the final result is the production of a commercial diffferent article.
A perusal of the records would show the respondent No. 2 was obliged to submit the details of the wages paid by them to their employees. They were also required to provide the details of the Provident Fund, ESI contributions, etc. This was for the payment by the service recipient. The respondent No. 2 was therefore only to provide manpower for which they were to be paid by the service recepient. It may be that the requirement was for a particular type of personnel and that were to perform particular kind of work. When the definition is clear and unambiguous, ignorance of law cannot be an excuse and the plea of genuine mistake in interpretation cannot hold good. The Tribunal with respect, has erred in coming to the conclusion that “it was not mere supply of labour was activity of the respondent but was also obliged to carryout other activity of unloading material to store/production area and packing the same” - A manpower recruitment or supply agency is a commercial concern engaged in providing any service directly or indirectly in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower temporarily or otherwise to a client. What the manpower supplied would do, will not alter the nature of services provided by a service provider and hence the services provided by the respondent No. 2 cannot come within the definition of manufacture.
To invoke Section 80, the service provider must show reasonable cause for failure to pay Service Tax. Unless and until the reasonable cause is shown, penalty levied under Section 76 and 78 cannnot be exempted - The respondent No. 2 has not shown any reasonable cause as to why Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1999 should not be invoked. As discussed, the excuse offered is only a complete afterthought and as stated earlier, a lame excuse. The appellate authority and Tribunal have completely errred in removing the imposition of penalty.
Supply of manpower cannot be mean to be a operation or activity in relation to manufacture. The mistake of interpretation cannot be accepted and cannot be termed as “Reasonable Cause” for not paying Service Tax.
The order of the Tribunal and the appellate authority are set aside and the order of the assessing authority is restored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1847
Striking off/removal of the names of defunct companies issued by the Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the respondent/complainant ought to have followed the procedures as per the Companies Act. Further the application should be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicants mentioned in paragraph 5(1) sworn before a Magistrate/Executive Magistrate/Oath Commissioner/Notary, to the effect that the company has not carried on any business or the company did some business for a period up to a date and then discontinued its operations, as the case may be, and has no assets or liabilities. The draft of the affidavit is as per draft prescribed and enclosed at annexure B to this circular.
The purpose of the scheme is to allow eligible companies to avail of this opportunity to exit from the Registrar of Companies after fulfilling the requirements laid down in this circular. No penal action would be initiated against eligible companies availing this scheme from the date of filing of the application for simplified exist. After the scheme ends, the Ministry would take necessary penal action under the Companies Act, 1956 against such defunct companies which have not availed of this opportunity and have not complied with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or are not filing documents with the Registrar of Companies in a timely manner. The applicant-company under this scheme would be deemed to be struck off from register of companies from the date of issue of order/notification by the Registrar of Companies.
The accused-company has filed the copies of the balance-sheets profit and loss account with the complainant. The accused-company and accused being the officers complied with the statutory requirements of section 220 of the Act. Both show-cause notices dated September 19, 2008 was issued by the complainant in this behalf which is seen from the annexures filed in the typed set. Therefore no valid ground existed against the petitioners/ accused in continuing the proceedings before the lower court.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1846
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Corporate Debtor - Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be annulled merely on the ground of pendency of a petition under Section 19 of ‘The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’. In fact in terms of Section 14 of I&B Code all such pending proceeding cannot proceed during the period of moratorium.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that there is no debt payable. However, when we asked the counsel to file an addition affidavit signed by the Appellant making specific statement that they have not received any amount or amount received has already been paid and therefore there is no debt or there is no default, it is informed by the counsel for the Appellant that such affidavit cannot be filed by the Appellant as the Corporate Debtor had taken loan from the Bank.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1845
Allowability of expenditure u/s 37 - Disallowance on account of expenses claimed against animal breeding and cooperative development expenses - treating these expenses to be revenue in nature without appreciating the fact that incurring of such expenses resulted in benefit of enduring nature - capital expenditure OR revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee from AY 2008-09 onwards in the decisions concerning the earlier assessment years, the action of the AO in making disallowance of the expenses incurred towards an animal breeding and cooperative development expenses on the ground that expenses resulted in benefit of enduring nature and therefore capital in nature, was set aside and it was concurrently held by the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority that such expenditure are revenue in nature. Thus, the issue is no longer resintegra. Consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench in earlier years [2018 (4) TMI 1555 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] the appeal of the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit. - Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1844
Interest on the outstanding refund - case of the assessee is that it is entitled to claim of interest, on the interest which is part of the outstanding refund as it also constitute “amount to be refunded” to the assessee as on 20/03/1993, on which date the demand relevant to the Assessment Year 1992-93, was set off by AO - HELD THAT:- As decided in K. LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER [2017 (11) TMI 589 - SUPREME COURT] the expression “due” only means that a refund becomes due if there is an order under the Act which either reduces or waives tax or interest. It is of no matter that the interest that is waived is discretionary in nature, for the moment that discretion is exercised, a concomitant right springs into being in favour of the assessee. We are, therefore of view that the C.I.T. (Appeals) and the ITAT were correct in their view and that consequently, the High Court was incorrect in its view that since a discretionary power has been exercised, no concomitant right was found for refund of interest to the assessee.
Also in assessee's own case [2017 (8) TMI 237 - ITAT KOLKATA] the assessee is entitled for interest on unpaid interest and accordingly dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard.
As decided in the assessee's own case for the very same assessment year 2002-03 had upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer granting interest under section 244A of the Act. The subsequent rectification proceedings and the consequent appellate orders thereon have been reversed by the hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the assessee's own case. Hence the Revenue should not have any grievance in the impugned appeal before us as the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had addressed the entire issue in the same lines in which the hon'ble High Court had addressed the issue. In our considered opinion, if at all the Revenue is aggrieved against the order of the hon'ble Calcutta High Court [2015 (7) TMI 780 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] they should have preferred a special leave petition before the hon'ble Supreme Court.
Assessee has given a computation of refund in the Annexure to his written submissions. AO is directed to verify the same and grant refund of the amount, in accordance with law
-
2018 (9) TMI 1843
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - claim for unabsorbed depreciation - mere change of opinion would not justify the AO in seeking a recourse to the powers under Sections 147 and 148 unless there is tangible material - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1842
Assessment u/s 153A - Admission of additional ground - whether no incriminating material found during the search, for the year which is a concluded assessment u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the aforesaid additional ground so raised by the assessee was not adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench while pronouncing its decision [2017 (12) TMI 1705 - ITAT JAIPUR] the same being apparent from record, we hereby recall the order passed by the Coordinate Bench for the limited purpose of adjudication of the additional ground so raised by the assessee.
The Registry is directed to list the matter for hearing on 30.10.2018.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1841
Deduction u/s 54B - Denial on the ground that the new agricultural land was purchased by the assessee on 29/11/2012 which is prior to the sale of existing agricultural land vide sale deed dated 28/01/2013 - HELD THAT:- Receipts of sale consideration and purchase consideration are through post dated cheques as evident from the record and none of the cheques was encashed on the date of execution of the sale deed but the receipt of sale consideration is after the agreement to sell dated 22/11/2012 and much prior to the sale deed dated 28/01/2013 whereas the entire purchase consideration was paid out from the bank account of the assessee only after the sale deed dated 29/11/2012.
These facts clearly established that the receipt as well as payment are through post dated cheques and therefore, the assessee has established the existence of the agreement to sell dated 22/11/2012 under which the purchase consideration was received by the assessee.
The subsequent documents consist of correction deed as well as the affidavit of the purchaser has supported the fact that the consideration for sale of the existing land was received at the time of the agreement to sell dated 22/11/2012 and possession was also handed over on the said date of agreement. Hence when the agreement was subsequently acted upon and in performance of the said agreement, the parties have finally executed the sale deed then the transaction will be considered as transferred as on the date of the agreement.
The assessee has satisfied the conditions of acquiring new agricultural land against the sale of existing agricultural land and therefore, it is a case of substitution of existing agricultural land by new agricultural land and consequently the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54B in respect of the agricultural land purchased for total cost of ₹ 2,47,60,900/-. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside qua this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1840
Appeal dismissed for non prosecution - HELD THAT:- No one appears for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that as per their information no pre-deposit has been made pursuant to the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 20th November, 2014. It is seen that way back in December, 2014, the appellant had sent a letter to the tribunal stating that they have filed a civil miscellaneous application in the Madras High Court against the said Tribunal order.
Thereafter, they have neither appraised the further developments, nor have been appearing ever since, before the Tribunal whenever it has been listed for hearing. In fact, in the last three years, they have not appeared on more than thirteen occasions. Therefore, feel that they are not interested in pursuing the appeals any further. All the above two appeals are dismissed for non prosecution
-
2018 (9) TMI 1839
Removal from Board of Directorship of respondent no. 1 – company - Petitioner also has pleaded that after such removal, share holding pattern may itself be drastically changed to reduce the petitioner to minority - HELD THAT:- Notice, returnable on 2692018.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1838
Removal of petitioner as the Director of the Company - HELD THAT:- There is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner and if interim orders are not passed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money for the reason that in the event the company which runs the hospital suffers bad name, being the director and substantial THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI DIVISION – II, MUMBAI 4 shareholder of the company, the petitioner has to bear the negative image apart from losing valuable investments made in to the company. Therefore, in this background of the matter, we hereby direct the respondent not to alter the shareholding pattern of the company and also not to give effect to resolution, if any, removing the petitioner as director of the company until further orders.
The respondent had uploaded the resolution removing the petitioner as a director of the company, respondents are directed to immediately remove/ delete the said resolution from the MCA postal, the DIR-12 must be cancelled and take appropriate steps to restore the name of the petitioner as a director of the company.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1837
Oppression and mismanagement - main contention of the petitioner in the main company petition is that his shareholding of 25 per cent. had been reduced to "nil" due to the oppressive act of the respondents as well as other allegations against the respondents made in the main company petition - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the petitioner continues to be director in the company and that during the time when the allotment to respondents Nos. 2 and 4 were made as well as at the time when the transfer is alleged to have taken place from petitioner to respondent No. 3 he had been a director of the first respondent-company. Necessarily in order to prima facie defeat the claim of the petitioner that he is not a member in the company, the respondents in order to convince this Tribunal, apart from merely stating in the reply that the petitioner is not a member, should have produced minutes of the board meeting wherein the allotment and/or transfer had taken place, the attendance register evidencing the attendance of petitioner in the said meetings as well as the share transfer form together with share certificate along with the reply which had been filed by the respondents.
Non-production of required documents - HELD THAT:- A statement is made that all the papers in relation to the first respondent-company including minute books and the Registrar of Companies documents have been lost and in the circumstances no record in relation to the first respondent-company is able to be produced. We are not very much convinced with this explanation given by respondent No. 3 for not providing evidence in relation to the share allotment and share transfer and that the above statement will not absolve respondent No. 3 from producing any shred of evidence in relation to the share transfer of the holding of the petitioner to himself as well as in relation to allotment of shares to respondents Nos. 2 and 4 which acts prima facie has made the petitioner to fall below the threshold limit of 10 per cent. as well as to make him as a non-member, if the acts of the respondents can be sustained of the first respondent-company.
In the absence of any proof, the petitioner cannot be shut out under section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 on mere statements of the respondents without any shred of evidence being produced to deny an opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the main company petition - this application as filed by the applicant/petitioner stands allowed and in terms of proviso to section 244(1), this Tribunal waives the requirement as specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 and permits the petitioner to prosecute the main company petition.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1836
Monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- Revenue is seeking withdrawal of the present appeal in terms of the litigation policy with reference to Board’s Instruction F. No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 11.07.2018 as the disputed amount involved in this case is less than ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only). The prayer is allowed.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
............
|
9911796707
