Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2020 2020 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 834 Records

• 2020 (6) TMI 795 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Application is filed within the limitation period as the date of default is 19.04.2018 and the date of filing this petition under Section 9 of IBC is 05.07.2018 - It is observed that the Corporate Debtor has tried to take moonshine defence of pre-existing dispute and brought some issues in the written statement which are not relevant.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 794 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  CENVAT Credit - input services - GTA services for outward transportation of goods from the factory to the buyer’s premises - goods are sold on FOR (buyer’s premises) basis - HELD THAT:- Such matters required to be remanded to the lower authorities for determining what is the place of removal?

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 793 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH
  

  Validity of inclusion of the entire claim of the financial creditors/ Oriental Bank of Commerce, and R3, by the RP - proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anuj Jain [2020 (2) TMI 1259 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- It is on the strength of the pleading and proof of default in repayment of the Loan availed by the CD from the OBC, the section 7 application was admitted vide order dated 28.9.2019. Whether the OBC invoked the corporate guarantee or whether the said portion of debt availed by the third party from the OBC falls out of the definition of financial debt was not at all an issue raised or answered by the NCLT, Kolkata Bench. So admittedly the CD has defaulted in repayment of ₹ 7,54,68,438/- out of the term loan admittedly availed by it. ₹ 19,04,12,812.21p evidently not due from the CD as the borrower but found due from the five third parties referred that they were also committed default in repayment to OBC.

  In Anuj Jain case, the IRP had rejected the claims to be recognized as financial creditors of the Corporate Debtor JIL on account of the securities provided by Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) for the facilities granted to Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL). The NCLT rejected the applications filed against the decision of the IRP while concluding that on the strength of the mortgages created by the corporate debtor JIL, as collateral security of the debts of its holding company JAL, the applicants cannot be treated as financial creditors of the corporate debtor JIL - In the present case the debt due to the OBC appears to me falls under the definition of financial debt and the lender is therefore a financial creditor. Because the lender/OBC had invoked the corporate guarantee even before the CIRP (i.e. on 26.09.2018). The concepts of financial debt as discussed in the above cited judgment is different from the debt claimed by the OBC in the case in hand.

  Thus, inclusion of the entire claim of the financial creditor/ Oriental Bank of Commerce, by the RP is not illegal, as their claims falls under the definition of the financial debt 5(8) (i) and not contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anuj Jain - the corporate Debtor herein is the Co-borrower of the loan and thus the said corporate Debtor is the Principal Borrower of R-3 and has created the mortgage to secure the said loan. Hence, the debt herein is a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the I & B Code and therefore I do not find any illegality in admiring R3’s claim by the RP and also found that admission of the claim not at all contrary to the proposition laid down in the Anuj Jain’s case. It appears that the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances highlighted on the side of R-3.

  Thus, inclusion of the entire claim of Oriental Bank of Commerce and R3 and the determination of the voting percentage of the members of the CoC considering the respective admitted claims of the financial creditors are found legal and proper - application dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 792 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of bail - actual owner of firms - petitioners No.1 and 2 have been alleged to be proprietors of the firms - raid was conducted at the house of accused Naveen Jain and the account books etc relating to these firms were recovered from him - HELD THAT:- It is pointed out that the petitioners were only employees of Naveen Jain and have been indicted falsely who are facing arrest at the hands of the respondent who had issued summons to them under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and it is apprehended that as and when they appear, they would be taken into custody in terms of Section 69 of Goods and Service Act, 2017.

  Attention of the Court is drawn to the order in TARUN BASSI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. [2020 (6) TMI 728 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein a similar provision regarding power of arrest as contained in Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act is under challenge.

  Notice of motion for 18.08.2020.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 791 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Benami Transaction - Real owners of property - Whether Govindasamy Naidu alone was having half share in the land covered under the sale deed dated 05.04.1911, Ex. A1 or Govindasamy Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu are having equal right, interest and title in the half share of the property covered under Ex. A1 dated 05.04.1911? - HELD THAT:- No hesitation to hold that Chinnamma Naidu had adequately contributed for purchasing the half share in the suit property by his elder brother Govindasamy Naidu under Ex. A1 and that is the reason why Chinnama Naidu could independently execute Exs. A5, A6 and A7, registered mortgage deeds in favour of third parties, for availing a loan. It is also to be stated that even a mortgage cannot be permitted to be executed by a person who has no title to the property covered under the mortgage. This is more so that the mortgage deeds under Exs. A5, A6 and A7 were registered mortgage deeds. In the absence of title in favour of Chinnamma Naidu, the registering authorities would not have permitted execution of Exs. A5, A6 and A7 by Chinnamma Naidu, independently. Therefore, we answer point No. 1 framed in this appeal to the effect that it was established by the appellants/plaintiffs that their grandfather Chinnamma Naidu had adequately contributed for purchasing the property covered under Ex. A1, sale deed dated 05.04.1911 along with his elder brother Govindasamy Naidu.

  Whether Govindasamy Naidu was holding the share of his brother Chinnamma Naidu in his fiduciary capacity? - Whether the suit transaction is hit by the provisions of Benami Transaction Act? - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that Ex. A1 in this case emanated during the year 1911 and the custom, tradition and belief practiced in those days, we are of the view that Chinnamma Naidu reposed absolute faith and trust towards his elder brother Govindasamy Naidu and Govindasamy Naidu, true to such faith and confidence reposed on him, had held the suit property in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of his brother Chinnama Naidu. Such a relationship falls within the exception to Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (now Section 2(9)(ii)(iv) of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.

  It is evident from Section 4 of the Act that the provisions of the Act are not applicable, if a person, in whose name the property is held, is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of such coparcener in the family. As we have held in respect of point No. 1, Chinnamma Naidu has got a share in the property covered under Ex. A1 along with his elder brother Govindasamy Naidu. Therefore, Chinnama Naidu is a coparcener in respect of the suit property and therefore, the applicability of the Act is specifically excluded. The appellants/plaintiffs also raised the plea with respect to fiduciary capacity in their reply statement before the trial court and evidence was also let in to that effect. Therefore, we hold that Govindasamy Naidu was holding the suit property in a fiduciary capacity for and on behalf of his younger brother Chinnamma Naidu and consequently, the suit transaction is not hit by the provisions of Benami Transaction Act. Accordingly, we answer point Nos. 2 and 3 also in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs.

  Whether the claim of the appellants for partition and separate possession is hit by the provisions of Limitation Act? - HELD THAT:- As evident from the fact that the name of the father of the plaintiffs Ramachandran is reflected in the revenue records in respect of the suit property, indicating that the plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of Ramachandran, continue to remain in possession of the suit property. Even otherwise, in a suit for partition, the possession of one of the co-parceners is for and on behalf of the other. The cause of action for filing a suit for partition is recurring one. As long as the relationship of co-ownership subsists, the right to seek partition continues. Even if one of the co-owners files a suit and subsequently abandon it for some reason, it will not be a ground for dismissal of the suit filed by another co-owner on the same cause of action. All that it implies is that the co-owner, who abandons a legal action initiated by him without continuing it any further, can be construed as the one who has chosen to continue his ownership in common without resorting to seek for division of the property and to allot him a separate share. We therefore hold that right to bring an action for partition is a continuing right, incidental to the right of joint ownership in the property in question. Such right subsists as long as the property remains undivided. Therefore, we hold that the claim of the appellants for partition and separate possession is not hit by the provisions of Limitation Act and we answer Point No. 4 also in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs.

  Whether the present suit for partition is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title? - HELD THAT:- In view of our conclusion with respect to point No. 1 holding that Chinnamma Naidu has jointly contributed for purchase of half share of the property covered under Ex. A1 along with his elder brother Govindasamy Naidu, we have to necessarily answer this question also in favour of the plaintiffs. Even otherwise, under Ex. A10, Patta, the name of Govindasamy Naidu and Chinnamma Naidu were mentioned as joint owners of the property in question. That apart, Ex. A11, series of Kist receipt would indicate that Chinnamma Naidu has individually paid kist in respect of his share of the property covered under Ex. A1. As long as the revenue records stood mutated in the name of grandfather of the plaintiffs Chinnama Naidu and the plea of the plaintiffs that they were in joint possession of the suit property along with the descendants of Govindasamy Naidu, coupled with the admission of Ponnusamy, tenth defendant, in his written statement admitting the title of Chinnama Naidu in the suit property, we are of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition, even without the relief of declaration of title, is maintainable. We accordingly answer Point No. 5 also in favour of the plaintiffs.

  Whether the plaintiffs are ousted from the suit property as has been claimed by the defendants 10 to 13? - HELD THAT:- The plaintiffs, in their plaint, have asserted that they are jointly in possession of the suit property along with the other legal heirs viz., defendants. The revenue records also stand in the name of their father Ramachandran. In a suit property, it is always regarded that the possession of one of the co-parceners is for and on behalf of the other co-parcener as well and the plea of ouster cannot be considered in a suit for partition on par with the plea of ouster raised in a suit for declaration. We could also see from Ex. B16 filed before the trial court that Nandakumar, son of Ponnusamy (tenth defendant) has filed a separate suit before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore against Rajagopal, Son of Annasamy, the third defendant in the suit, and three others. The said suit was filed for a bare injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property. The plaintiff asserts a right to portion of the suit property on the basis of the settlement deed executed in his favour by his father Ponnusamy (tenth defendant in the present suit). In the plaint, the plaintiff in O.S. has categorically refers to the present suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and also states that they are also in joint possession of the suit property along with other legal heirs. In such circumstances, the plea of ouster cannot be countenanced. Therefore, we answer point No. 6 also in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs in this appeal.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 790 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The application is filed by Assistant General Manager and Principal Officer of the bank. He is authorized through General Power of Attorney issued on 27.09.2011. The General Power of Attorney is valid and in force. It is also stated by the counsel for the Applicant that the officer of the bank has been authorized to grant loan, recovery of the loan, to initiate the proceedings of CIRP against the person who has defaulted. In such case, the Corporate Debtor cannot plead that officer has power to sanction loan but such officer has no power to recover the loan amount or initiate corporate insolvency resolution process inspite of default by the Corporate Debtor - the Power of Attorney authorised Shri Shashi Bushan Prasad Singh Asst. General Manager to grant loan, recover loan and to apply for insolvency proceedings.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The petition is filed on 22.10.2018 and the date of default is 01.07.2015. In this regard, it is noted that the last entry (credit) in loan A/c. is on 30-12-2015 (page No. 922of the application). Hence, the present IB Petition filed on 22.10.2018 is well within the period of limitation.

  This Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor in repayment of loan amount to the Bank. The petition is complete. As a consequence, the instant petition is admitted in terms of Section 7 of the IB Code and the moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) of IB Code.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 789 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU
  

  Maintainability of Interim application - Oppression and mismanagement - seeking to stay the operation of the impugned circular resolutions Nos. SREIPL-CR-003/2019/20, SREIPL-CR-004/2019/20 and SREIP L-CR-005/2019/20 dated 10.02.2020 - HELD THAT:- In the normal course, Interim Applications are maintainable only after question of Admission of the main case is over. And separate Interim Application(s) can be filed later on, if any new developments takes place in the case, and there is any urgency in the mater. Since the case is coming for admission for the first time and the Respondents requested time for filing their replies to Main/interim reliefs sought for, separate Applications are not maintainable. Moreover, the pleadings and prayers made in the above Applications are more or less covered under the reliefs sought for in the main Company Petition.

  Application are hereby disposed of by granting liberty to Applicants/Petitioners to urge the Tribunal to pass appropriate interim orders as sought for under the paragraph No. 44 of the main Company Petition, at the time of next date of hearing - Post the CP for consideration of interim reliefs on 10.07.2020.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 788 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claim - petitioner has repeatedly requested the respondent authorities to grant him refund as claimed - HELD THAT:- In opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be served if the authorities are directed to consider all pending applications filed by the petitioner and examine whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the claim. Such decision shall be taken in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.

  This Court has not expressed any opinion on such application filed by the petitioner and the same shall be considered by the authorities as directed by this Court on its own merits - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 787 - SC ORDER
  

  Grant of Regular Bail - fake firms - offences under Sections 132(1)(B), (C), (D), (F), (I), (L) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 786 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Smuggling - Heroin - contraband item - only evidence against petitioner is in the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial - HELD THAT:- It is a case where the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of disclosure statement, the petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 785 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL — MUMBAI BENCH—COURT NO. 5
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On perusing the documents produced on record, it is understood that the corporate debtor has defaulted in repayment of debt. The corporate debtor has acknowledged the disbursement of loan and its liability to repay on several occasions. However, the corporate debtor failed to pay. Hence, owing to the inability of the corporate debtor to pay its dues, this is a fit case to be moved under section 7 of the I and B Code.

  The nature of debt is a "financial debt" as defined under section 5(8) of the Code. It has also been established that there is a "default" as defined under section 3(12) of the Code on the part of the debtor. The two essential qualifications, i. e., existence of "debt" and "default", for admission of a petition under section 7 of the I and B Code, have been met in this case.

  It is found that the petitioner has not received the outstanding debt from the respondent and that the formalities as prescribed under the Code have been completed by the petitioner, this petition deserves "admission" - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 784 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL — MUMBAI BENCH—II
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - corporate term loans to the CD and CD has failed to pay instalments - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The FC had extended corporate term loans to the CD and CD has failed to pay instalments, overdue amount and the principal amount as stated. FC also submitted Commercial Credit Information Report dated October 11, 2019 as record of default.

  Mere denial of the claim of the FC without any supporting evidence such as regular repayment of instalments, overdue amount, principal loan amount, etc., will not satisfy the submission of the managing director of the CD. Also, mere dialogues going on between the parties cannot amount to no default as claimed by the managing director in his reply - Petition filed under section 241 of the Companies Act will not have any bearing for the current proceedings initiated under the IBC.

  The application made by the financial creditor is complete in all respects as required by law. It clearly shows that the corporate debtor is in default of a debt due and payable, and the default is in excess of minimum amount of one lakh rupees stipulated under section 4(1) of the IBC at the relevant time. Therefore, the default stands established and there is no reason to deny the admission of the petition.

  Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 783 - SC ORDER
  

  Validity of order of spcial bench of NCLT - Irregularity in publishing of Cause List in the prescribed manner - Whether non-adherence to Rules 89, 150 to 153 of NCLT Rules, 2016 would vitiate the impugned order? - initiation of CIRP - the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the outstanding dues of the secured creditor / 4th respondent herein within a period of 15 days - HELD THAT:- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

  The question of law is kept open.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 782 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  

  Profiteering - benefit of reduction in the CST rate w.e.f. 15.11.2017 not passed to customers but instead increased the base prices of the products by keeping the Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) unchanged - violation of provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is revealed that Respondent is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of Cosmetic, FMCGs and Pharma products through the network of distributors spread all over India. It is also revealed that the Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had reduced the GST rate on a number of products from 12% to 5% vide Notification No. 34/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 1310.2017 with effect from 14.10.2017 and from 28% to 18% vide Notification No. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 14.11.2017 with effect from 15.11.2017. This fact has also not been contested by the Respondent. Therefore, there is no dispute that the Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of tax reductions w.e.f. 14.10.2017 and 15.11.2017 respectively. it is further revealed that a total of 425 items were impacted by the GST rate reductions. Out of these 425 items, 52 items were impacted by the CST rate reduction from 12% to 5% w.e.f. 14.10.2017 and 373 items were impacted by the GST rate reduction from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 15.11 2017.

  It is also evident from the record that the Applicant No. 1 who is also General Secretary of All India Chemists & Distributors Federation had filed an application under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 27.11.2017 before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering alleging that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reductions in the GST rates to his customers but had instead increased the base prices of his products by keeping the Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) unchanged.

  The profiteered amount has been computed by comparing the average pre rate reduction base prices of the impacted products with the average post rate reduction base prices in respect of both the tax reductions. The above mathematical methodology adopted by the DGAP to compute the profiteered amount is not in consonance with the methodology approved by this Authority in the cases of tax reductions decided by it as the profiteered amount has been determined by comparing the average pre rate reduction base prices with the actual post rate reduction prices - the mathematical methodology adopted by the DGAP is not correct, logical, appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore; the Report dated 22.10.2019 furnished by the DGAP cannot be accepted.

  As per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 this order was to be passed on or before 22.04.2020 as the investigation Report was received from the DGAP on 23.10 2019 However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic prevailing in the Country the order could not be passed on or before the above date. Hence, the same is being passed today in terms of the Notification No. 35/2020-CentraI Tax dated 03.04.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs under Section 168 A of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 781 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  

  Profiteering - Paints - Varnishes - Putty - Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of GST - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The record reveals that the Government had reduced the GST rate from 28% to 18% w.e.f. 27.07.2018 vide its Notification No. 18/2018-Central Tax dated 26.07.2018 on “Paints, Varnishes and Putty”. This fact has also not been contested by the Respondent. Therefore, there is no dispute that the Respondent is liable to pass on the benefit of tax reductions w.e.f. 27.07.2018. It is further observed that the Respondent who supplied the above products was impacted with the Notification in the case of 331 products. Out of these 331 products, base prices only in the case of 151 products were increased from 27.07.2018 (post GST rate reduction). Therefore, the Respondent is required to pass on an amount of ₹ 3,76,360/- in respect of these 151 products.

  It is also evident from the record that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering alleging that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reductions in the GST rates to his customers but had instead increased the base prices of his products by keeping the Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) unchanged. The above Applicant had also submitted invoices showing both the pre and post GST rate reduction prices claiming that the Respondent had not reduced the MRPs.

  It is clear from the narration of the facts that the profiteered amount has been computed by comparing the average pre rate reduction base prices of the impacted products with the monthly average post rate reduction base prices in respect of both the tax reductions. The mathematical methodology adopted by the DGAP to compute the profiteered amount is not in line with the methodology adopted by the DGAP himself in similar cases of profiteering wherein the average pre rate reduction base prices have been compared with the actual post rate reduction prices to compute the profiteered amount. Further, in case the mathematical methodology of comparing the average to average base prices employed by the DGAP is adopted it would not be possible to compute the benefit of tax reduction which is due to each customer on each supply. The profiteered amount computed by the DGAP would also not be correct.

  The DGAP is directed to compare the average pre rate reduction base prices of the products which were impacted by the tax rate reduction w.e.f. 27.07.2018 with the actual post rate reduction base prices of the impacted products - the DGAP shall reinvestigate the case and submit his Report under Rule 133 (4) of the Rules. The Respondent is directed to extend necessary assistance to the DGAP during the course of the investigation.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 this order was required to be passed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the Report from the DGAP under Rule 129 (6) of the above Rules. Since the present Report has been received by this Authority on 10.10.2019 the order was to be passed on or before 09.04.2020. However, due to the prevalent pandemic of COVID-19 in the country, this order could not be passed on or before the above date due to force majeure - this order is being passed today in terms of the Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs under Section 168 A of the CGST Act, 2017.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 780 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - non-recording of dissatisfaction - Assessee submitted that it did not incur any expense during the year for earning exempt income - HELD THAT:- As rightly pointed out that the Ld CIT(A), we notice that the AO has issued show cause notice to the assessee on due examination of financial statements of the assessee, since the assessee did not make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, even though it had earned exempt income. Hence the dissatisfaction of the AO has been demonstrated in the assessment order and it is not a case of mechanical invoking of provisions of Rule 8D. Accordingly we reject ground of the assessee.

  Assessee has got sufficient own funds and hence disallowance u/s 14A is not warranted - As noticed earlier that the exempt income earned by the assessee included “share income from partnership firm”, which is exempt u/s 10(2A) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the investments made in partnership firm are also required to be considered for comparing the value of investments with the available own funds. We notice that the value of investments held by the assessee as at the year end is ₹ 1,444.46 crores, whereas the own funds available with the assessee was ₹ 585.21 crores only. Hence, it cannot be said that the own funds available with the assessee was more than the value of investments. Hence, this argument of the assessee also fails on the above said facts.

  Share income from partnership firm should not be considered as exempt income, since the profits of partnership firm have already suffered tax in the hands of the partnership firm - We notice that the very same issue was considered by Ahmedabad Special bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Vishnu Anand Mahajan [2012 (6) TMI 297 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] and identical contentions made by the assessee were rejected by holding that, once the share income is excluded from the total income u/s 10(2A) of the Act, the provisions of section 14A of the Act would apply to it. Hence, this contention of the assessee would fail.

  Assessee is a partner in many firms - We do not find any merit in this contention of the assessee, since what is exempted under the Act is share income received from the partnership firm u/s 10(2A) of the Act, meaning thereby, the profit or loss received from the partnership firm does not enter into computation of income at all. Hence the question of setting off income from partnership firm inter se does not arise. Accordingly, once a particular income does not enter into the computation on the ground the same is exempt, as held by special bench in the case of Sri Vishnu Anand Mahajan (supra), provisions of section 14A of the Act would apply. In this case, there is no dispute that the share income from partnership firm to the tune of ₹ 1,02,01,474/- has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(2A) of the Act. Hence the provisions of sec.14A shall apply to the above said exempt income.

  Disallowance made by the tax authorities u/s 14A of the Act is much more than exempt income - As quantum of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the amount of exempt income, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/a 14A to the amount of exempt income.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 779 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Refund of amount deposited at the time of filing of appeal - appealable order under Section 112 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - time limitation for filing appeal - HELD THAT:- The petitioner very fairly admits the legal position and also the fact that the goods have already been released.

  The instant petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner can invoke the remedy of filing appeal before the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 778 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Petition for transfer of all matters to the Delhi High Court - HELD THAT:- As pointed out at the Bar that against the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal, one of the parties has approached the Supreme Court and the matter is listed today. It is further stated that other matters relating to the same issue having been filed in different High Courts, there is a petition for transfer of all matters to the Delhi High Court which is also listed today before the Supreme Court. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, let this matter be posted on Tuesday i.e. 23.06.2020

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Validity of Garnishee Order - CIRP proceedings are ongoing - failure to deposit taxes by Banks for the period from 2011-12 & 2012-13 - direction to Banks to pay into Government's treasury, on account of tax / penalty due under the JVAT Act - resolution plan approved.

  HELD THAT:- Applications seeking exemption from filing Official Translation and Certified Copy of the impugned order are allowed.

  Issue notice.

  ---

• 2020 (6) TMI 776 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH
  

  Seeking restoration of name of the companyin the Register of Companies as maintained by the Registrar of Companies - section 252 of Companies Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Due to non-filling of the Balance Sheet since 31.03.1999 because of such reason the ROC, Gwalior struck off the name of the company - the present company appeal is filed (on 20.11.20) after the expiry of the period prescribed for availing benefits of delay condonation scheme, 2018 which was available only up to 01.05.2018 to apply to the Central Government for removal of disqualification imposed under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 and further for reactivation of its Director's DIN.

  Hence, the Central Government, Ministry of Corporate Affair may consider such prayer as per its norms for re-activation of DIN of the directors of the appellant company in the light of this Tribunal's order. The company is further expected to clear its Income Tax dues, if any, and to obtain a No-Objection Certificate from the Income Tax Department.

  It would not be just and equitable to revive the name of the company, M/s. Rahul Steel Forging Pvt. Ltd. in the statutory register as being maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Gwalior - Petition dismissed.

  ---

1234567........ 42