|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1438 Records
-
2021 (10) TMI 1379 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 35D - share premium collected on the issue of Share Capital - whether to be treated as part of the ‘Capital Employed’ for allowing deduction? - HELD THAT:- The points raised herein are squarely covered by the judgment of Berger Paints India Ltd., [2017 (3) TMI 1531 - SUPREME COURT] Hence, this substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Cost of acquisition of companies be treated as asset for allowing deduction u/s 35D - HELD THAT:- This issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the assessee’s own case in [2021 (10) TMI 1209 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein as held that going by meaning assigned to the word “extension”, quite apart from the horizontal expansion in the industrial undertaking, vertical expansion also stands included within the meaning of the term “extension” of the industrial undertaking - as further stated that the assessee has incurred expenditure for the purpose of acquisition of Subex Americas Inc., and Subex UK Limited and the same was incurred for the purpose of expansion of the business. There being vast difference between “expansion” and “extension”, the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the consolidation procedures as per the Accounting Standard [AS-21], cannot be countenanced this substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Deduction u/s 35D be disturbed in the subsequent years - HELD THAT:- Section 35D has been disturbed in the subsequent years in a manner known to law. Hence, this question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Deduction u/s 10AA - telecommunication expense re to be excluded from export turnover in computing deduction - HELD THAT:- This question is covered by the ruling of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Mindtree Ltd. [2020 (8) TMI 767 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that assessee has incurred expenditure in foreign currency from export turnover for software development. Similarly, the telecommunication charges attributable to delivery of computer software outside India could not have been excluded from the export turnover in view of Explanation 1(i) to Section 10AA of the Act. It is also noteworthy that Explanation 2 to Section 10AA provides that profits and gains derived from; on site development of computer software (including services for development of software) outside India shall be deemed to be the profits and gains derived from the export of computer software outside India. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1378 - SUPREME COURT
Detention of goods - sending of fake injections - failure to communicate the State Government or Central's government rejection of the Appellant's representation - violation of procedural rights - HELD THAT:- The unexplained delay on part of the State Government in deciding the representation of the Appellant and second, the failure of the Central and State Governments to communicate the rejection of the representation to the Appellant in a timely manner. The basis of the extensions which have been issued on 15 July 2021 and 30 September 2021, finds its genesis in the original order of detention dated 11 May 2021. Once the order of detention stands invalidated, the consequential extensions would follow the same course. During the course of the proceedings, both parties have advanced submissions on the merits of the order of detention. In the view which we have taken, it is not necessary to consider these other grounds of challenge since the Appellant is entitled to succeed on the violation of his procedural rights under the Constitution and the statute.
The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 24 August 2021 shall stand set aside. The order of detention dated 11 May 2021 and the extensions dated 15 July 2021 and 30 September 2021 shall accordingly stand quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1377 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH COURT III
Failure on the part of Resolution Professional to perform his duty - Seeking direction to respondent to continue providing its services to Corporate Debtor in terms of the Agreement dated 15.01.2007 executed between the Respondent and Corporate Debtor - seeking declaration that non-providing of the services with regard to Record Management Services and Record Retrieval Services by the Respondent as violated Section 14(2)(a) of the IBC - entitlement to payment in terms of agreement after commencement of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor - seeking direction to respondent to compensate the losses suffered by the Corporate Debtor on account of the refusal of the Respondent to provide uninterrupted critical services in terms of the agreement - Section 14 (2)(A) of I&B Code.
HELD THAT:- It is therefore clear to the Bench that the Respondent Company was fully aware that the services provided by it are critical in nature. The Bench finds it clear in the averments made by the Respondent in their reply/application bearing I.A. No. 1628/2021 that the Respondent has made a wrong and fallacious interpretation of section 14(2A) when its says that this section is not applicable to the present case - The Bench also found that the refusal of the Respondent to deny access to the RP to the Business record of the Corporate Debtor is in contrary to Section 18 and 25 of the Code - The Bench notes that the business record of the Company is an indelible right of the Resolution Professional and a contractual duty of the Respondent which it has has failed to perform. In view of this the Bench, the Bench is of the views and as pleaded by the Corporate Debtor that the Corporate is entitled for cost incurred by the Respondent under Section 235A of the Code.
The Corporate Debtor pleaded that it had to continue to render establishment cost in several cities during the Covid period because of non-availability of data from the Respondents because of which it could not take a decision regarding release of properties taken on rent. Thus, as per the Corporate Debtor has resulted into an additional cost of about Rs. 6.22 crores.
The Respondent is directed to continue providing its services to the Corporate Debtor as per the terms of the Agreement dated 15.01.2007 executed between the Respondent and the Corporate Debtor - Since the Respondent has not provided any services from the commencement of CIRP dated 22.10.2019 till the present date, the Respondent is not entitled to any payment in terms of the agreement towards Record Management Services and Record Retrieval Services for this period. It is also directed to refund payments, if any, back to the RP/Corporate Debtor as refund for the period between commencement of the CIRP on 22.10.2019 till present.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1376 - SUPREME COURT
Possession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to known sources of income - offences punishable Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Appellant is challenging the very "source" of the Respondents' income and the questioning the assets acquired by them based on such income. Hence, at the stage of quashing of an FIR where the Court only has to ascertain whether the FIR prima facie makes out the commission of a cognizable offence, reliance on the documents produced by the Respondents to quash the FIR would be contrary to fundamental principles of law. The High Court has gone far beyond the ambit of its jurisdiction by virtually conducting a trial in an effort to absolve the Respondents - The investigation is stated to be at an advanced stage and is likely to conclude within a period of two to three months. At the same time, the Court has been assured by the ASG on the instructions of the Investigating Officer that before concluding the investigation, the first and second Respondents will be called in order to enable them to tender their explanation in respect of the heads of Disproportionate Assets referred to in the FIR.
The only infirmity pointed out by the Respondents which has been acceded to by the Appellant is in relation to the addition of the value of the elevator separately when the whole house had already been valued. However, by itself, it only being a value of Rs. 10 lakhs, this will not be enough to take away the whole basis of the Disproportionate Assets case against the Respondents. Hence, at this stage, the FIR against the Respondents cannot be quashed and it is held that the Appellant's investigation pursuant to it shall continue.
The impugned judgment dated 11 February 2020 of the Single Judge of the Telangana High Court quashing the FIR and any proceedings pursuant to it, are set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT
Doctrine of approbate and reprobate - Filling up of post of Director-General either by direct recruitment or on deputation in tune with CPRI (Pay, Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1989 - HELD THAT:- There is no element of an unequal bargaining power involved. Nobody has forced the Respondent to enter into a contract. He indeed was an employee of the society for 23 years. We do not wish to go into the question as to whether it is a case of re-employment or not, as the fact remains that the Respondent wanted the job, which is why there was an unexplained and studied reluctance to raise the issue of him being a permanent/regular employee, but only at the fag end of his tenure.
The first of the representations were made on 30.12.2014, followed by others. The conduct speaks for itself. Hence, on the principle governing delay, laches, and acquiescence, followed by approbation and reprobation, Respondent No. 1 ought not to have been granted any relief by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the interpretation of the rules, we have already discussed that there is no prohibition in law for a tenure appointment. We are dealing with a post that stands at the top realm of the administration. There is an intended object and rationale attached to the post. It is the incumbent of the post who has to carry forward the object and vision in the field of research - The Division Bench was not right in holding that the highest constitutional authority on the executive side was misled by the lower officials. There are no place for such an inference. A conscious decision has been made to go for a tenure appointment in the interest of society. Similarly, a conscious decision was also made to go for a fresh recruitment.
There is a marked difference between the assessments made during the Respondent's tenure and the one made for continuation after the completion of the tenure. No question of being a junior or senior arises as materials have been placed for assessment by a different department. The assessment was done by the highest authorities, as approved by the Secretary to the Government of India and by the Hon'ble Minister concerned apart from the Cabinet Secretary - In the absence of any prohibition and mandatory mode of appointment, the Appellant's decision in going for a tenure appointment is perfectly in order.
The order is very explicit in saying that it is subject to suitability, and such suitability for re-appointment having been considered, this Court is not expected to substitute its view. The non-consideration of the report by the "ACC" also would not be fatal, as the Cabinet Secretary himself has approved it, and so also the other higher authorities - the Respondent has not shown any substantial prejudice. Even if one assumes that these materials have not been placed before "ACC", we believe that there may not be any need for such approval for two reasons. Firstly, the first Appellant found that the Respondent is not suitable for re-appointment, which was approved by the other authorities. Therefore, the employer has taken a conscious decision in the interest of the society. Secondly, it is not a case of extension in which case maybe the confirmation by "ACC" would have been warranted.
The appeals filed by the Respondent deserve to be dismissed. Once it is held that the Respondent is not entitled to any extension, the consequential benefits cannot be granted - appeals filed by the Appellants stand allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1374 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA
Maintainability of application - seeking initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process against the guarantor - section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- As on date no CIRP or Liquidation process is pending against the Corporate Debtor because of approval of the Resolution Plan. Section 60(2) of the Code requires that for an Insolvency Resolution Process to be initiated against the guarantor there must be CIRP or Liquidation process is pending against the principal borrower/Corporate Debtor. Since, that requirement is not satisfied in the present case, at this point of time petition is premature and is dismissed as such.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1373 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Rebate claim - duty paid on the goods, which were exported by the appellants - amount adjusted against the said amount of rebate, which is allegedly due from the appellants - HELD THAT:- From the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, it is evident that the adjustment in the present case has been made bona fide as permissible under the provisions of the Act.
There are no merit in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1372 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Seeking to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd Respondent Bank and the 3rd Respondent Board to comply with the Corporate Governance requirements while conducting the 94th AGM - seeking to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd Respondent Bank and the 3rd Respondent Board and the 9th Respondent Committee to identify appropriate candidates and place their recommendations before the members during the 94th AGM - seeking to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd Respondent and the 3rd Respondent reassess the performance of the Petitioner and recommend the Petitioner for appointment as Director to be placed before the 94th AGM - rejection of application of the Petitioner under Section 160 of the Companies Act 2013.
HELD THAT:- There is consensus of all the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting parties, for relegating the matter to the writ court, so as to enable the parties to advance submissions, for the final conclusion on the maintainability of the writ petitions, instead of a prima facie opinion.
It is deemed fit to interfere with the impugned interim order to the limited extent of remitting the matter, for attaining finality to the preliminary issue of maintainability of the writ petitions - the matter is remitted back to the writ court, granting liberty to all the parties concerned, to advance submissions, regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1371 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment of Agricultural income - income received from the sale of rubber was subjected to tax under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act 1950 ('KAIT Act') - re-plantation expenses are considered as capital expenditure and the expenses incurred by the assessee for upkeep and maintenance of newly planted rubber trees are in the nature of revenue expenditure, for mere plantation of rubber trees, the assessees do not earn income, but the income is derived only from proper upkeep and maintenance of trees - HELD THAT:- The scope and extent of the operation of Rule 7A, which is similar to Rule 8(2), with regard to allowance for replanting expenses and deduction towards upkeep and maintenance expenses of immature plants in computation of income from rubber under the provisions of the Act and Rules need an authoritative pronouncement from this Court.
Revenue, argues that there is no need or necessity for reconsideration of Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. case [2012 (6) TMI 570 - KERALA HIGH COURT] by the Full Bench, Accordingly to Revenue, it is for the Supreme Court, if necessary, to lay down law in this behalf. We are not persuaded with the objection stated by the Revenue. Firstly, Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. has not taken note of the judgments referred to above in Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. [1960 (12) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT] and Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. [1962 (11) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT]. Rule 7A(2) juxtaposed with Rule 8(2) and the case law on the point under KAIT Act would demonstrate that the applicable provisions of law and the precedents on the point are not adverted to by the Division Bench. The claims of assessees are rejected by referring to the view taken in Division Bench judgment.
We refer the following question for consideration by a Full Bench of this Court, subject to the orders of Hon'ble The Chief Justice:
“Whether the assessee/Plantation Companies under Rule 7A(2) of the Rules are entitled to an allowance towards replanting expenses and a further deduction towards upkeep and maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee for the immature plants till the age of maturity in the computation of income under the Act and Rules.”
In our considered view the issues are of regular occurrence for all the plantation owners and the question needs an authoritative pronouncement from a Full Bench of this Court.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1370 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING UTTAR PRADESH
Exempt supply or not - service of repairs and maintenance of vehicles used for sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal and other environmental protection services provided to Local Authorities - service of repairs and maintenance of JCBs and Mobile Toilets to the Government and Local Authorities - Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017 - pure services or not - the services to be covered under Heading 9994 as per Serial Nos. 75 and 76 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017 or not - rate of GST - determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both - HELD THAT:- Entry No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 exempts ‘‘Pure Services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union Territory or local authority or a Government Authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution”.
The ‘service of repairs and maintenance of vehicles used for sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal and other environmental protection services’ and the service of ‘repairs and maintenance of JCBs and Mobile Toilets’ involves supply of parts also as per ‘Scope of Work’ mentioned in aforesaid paragraphs. As such, the services provided by the applicant are not ‘pure services’ and the same are not covered in Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 - the applicant had also submitted in Statement of Facts along with Form GST ARA-01 that they are engaged in business of providing works contract services. As such, the exemption is not admissible to the applicant on ‘service of repairs and maintenance of vehicles used for sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal and other environmental protection services’ and the service of ‘repairs and maintenance of JCBs and Mobile Toilets’ under Entry No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.
The applicant is not engaged in providing services by way of public conveniences such as provision of facilities of bathroom, washrooms, lavatories, urinal or toilets. In fact, the applicant is engaged in providing services of repairs and maintenance of Mobile Toilets which is not covered in the entry ‘services by way of public conveniences’. As such, the exemption under Sl. No. 76 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017 is not admissible to the applicant - the exemption under Serial Nos. 75 and 76 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017 is available to SAC 9994 which covers ‘Sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal and other environmental protection services’.
The ‘services of repairs and maintenance of vehicles used for sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal and other environmental protection services’ and the service of ‘repairs and maintenance of JCBs and Mobile Toilets’ are not covered in SAC 9994 as per the scheme of classification of service as appended with Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and Explanatory Notes to the Scheme of Classification of Services.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1369 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment u/s 153A - Tribunal justification in holding that Section 143(2) notice is not required to be issued in the case of an assessment under Section 153A - HELD THAT:- It the very argument of the assessee that the explanation to a statutory provision may fulfill the purpose of clearing up the ambiguity or can't add to or widen the scope of the main section, thereby the procedure in the assessment under Section 153A is as otherwise provided in this Section is not a complete legal argument, by applying explanation to Section 153A of the Act. The argument of assessee as pointed out by Mr.P.K.R Menon ignores the presence of the words “save as otherwise provided in this Section i.e., Section 153A”. The plain reading of explanation leads to the very same conclusion as reached in the reported cases in Tarsem Singla [2016 (7) TMI 703 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and Promy Kuriakose [2016 (8) TMI 327 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. The explanation, in the final analysis of the scheme of Section 153A, does not in any manner expand the meaning, including the requirement of Section 143 (2) of the Act.
For the above reasons and discussions, the questions are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1368 - ITAT SURAT
Income from house property - 90 shops which are allegedly lying vacant - assessee is claiming those shops as stock in trade - Lower Authorities brought those shops under taxation under the head “income from house property” and thereby calculated the ALV and after granting 30% standard deduction worked out the ALV of those shops - HELD THAT:- As Assessee vehemently submitted that assessee is a builder and unsold shops/units are stock-in-trade and cannot be brought to tax under the head “income from house property” as held by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006 (8) TMI 105 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the income derived from stock would be income from “ business and profession” and not from “income from house property”.
We find that assessee has shown business income from rent received from letting out of 231 shops and rent received therefrom is accepted as income from business and profession by Revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Neha Builders (P.) Ltd., the addition on account of income from property is with regard to 90 shops which are allowing vacant being stock-intrade cannot be brought to tax. Similar view was taken by Co-ordinate Bench in Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani [2018 (12) TMI 1963 - ITAT SURAT]
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1367 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction of Education Cess - assessee debited education cess in the Profit & Loss Account which was disallowed u/s 40(a)(ii) in the computation of income - assessee claimed the deduction of the same during appellate proceedings which was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- This issue is squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. [2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that in the Income-tax Act, 1922, Section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession'. However, in the corresponding Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 the expression "cess" is quite conspicuous by its absence. In fact, legislative history bears out that this expression was in fact to be found in the Income-tax Bill, 1961 which was introduced in the Parliament. However, the Select Committee recommended the omission of expression "cess" and consequently, this expression finds no place in the final text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) - The effect of such omission is that the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) does not include, "cess" and consequently, "cess" whenever paid in relation to business, is allowable as deductable expenditure. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO to allow the deduction of education cess paid by the assessee. This ground stand allowed.
Quantum of deduction u/s 35(2AB) - HELD THAT:- We concur with the submissions of Ld. AR that deduction has to be allowed as claimed by the assessee and certified by the Auditors since the amendment was brought in the Rule 6(7A)(b) w.e.f. 01/07/2016 only. Prior to the amendment, the prescribed authority was to submit its report in relation to the approval of in-house research & development facility in form No.3CL to the DG (IT exemptions) within 60 days of its granting approval. It was only with effect from 01/07/2016, the prescribed authority was required to quantify the expenditure incurred by the assessee on in-house research & development facility.
We find that fact as well as issue is pari-materia the same. In the absence of any contrary decision on record, respectfully following the above decisions, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 35(2AB) on actual expenditure incurred by it. The aggregate amount of expenditure stated be to be incurred by the assessee is Rs.150.19 Lacs and the assessee is eligible to claim deduction @200%. AO is directed to quantify the exact claim and allow the deduction of the same. This ground stand allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1366 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - direction to appellant to accept the revised return filed by the respondent - extension of input tax credit under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the TNVAT Act - primary and substantial ground which was raised in the writ petitions was that the Assessing Officer was guided by the report issued by the Enforcement Wing Officials which could not have been the basis for completing the assessment - HELD THAT:- The lis before the Court was as to whether the revision of assessment was valid and whether there were any procedural impropriety committed by the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, the finding regarding taxability of the product or otherwise may not be required to be given at that stage as the adjudicatory process is yet to be completed.
When the matter stands remanded to the authority, an open remand would be more appropriate, especially when the counter affidavit filed by the appellant was a very brief counter affidavit and the preliminary objection taken by the appellant was that the writ petitions are not maintainable and the respondent should have filed an appeal under Section 51 of the Act - the matter should go back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law.
The writ appeals are partly allowed and the order and direction issued in the writ petitions in so far as it remands the matter to the Assessing Officer is sustained.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1365 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Suit for recovery of money due on a promissory note - defence of the defendant is that the defendant has neither borrowed any amount nor executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff - forgery of signature of defendant - HELD THAT:- As of now, there is no mechanism or scientific method to findout the age of the writing or ink. But the learned Additional District Judge, without considering the non-availability of any such mechanism, by simply observing that the defendant has to be given an opportunity to prove his defence and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, allowed the petition. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is not good in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that this Court has already fixed the time limit for disposal of the suit and the same was not complied with, as the proceedings were subsequently stayed by this Court in the present revision, this Court is of the view that necessary directions are to be issued for the early disposal of the suit.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1364 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - non-existent transactions - Section 132(1)(b) & (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 R/w Section 132(1)(i) and Sub-Section (5) of the Act - HELD THAT:- As per the charge-sheet and the evidence collected by the Department, it has turned out that fake entities were created and no goods were in fact transported from one entity to another and fake bills were generated, hence, there are no change in the circumstances so as to entertain the third bail application.
The third bail application is accordingly rejected.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1363 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - offence under Sections 132(1)(b)(c) of of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- No ground is made out for entertaining the second bail application as there is no change in circumstance necessitating entertaining the second bail application.
The Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application is dismissed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1362 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Omission on part of ITAT to decide the grounds - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Tribunal has inadvertently omitted to decide ground Nos. 2 & 3 of the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 and ground No.2 of the assessee appeal for assessment year 2013-14, which, is mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, we allow these Misc. Applications and recall the order [2021 (5) TMI 1041 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] for a limited purpose of adjudicating ground No 2&3 of the assessee’s appeal pertaining to AY 2012-13 and ground No 2 of the assessee’s appeal for the AY 2013-14 after hearing the assessee on theses afresh. Misc. Applications are allowed.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1361 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Seeking appointment of Insolvency Resolution Professional - HELD THAT:- The applicant has approached the IRP who has accorded his consent to accept his appointment as the IRP. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Seeking his replacement from the position of Interim Resolution Profession for the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor - HELD HAT:- Application has becomes infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
List main company petition on 06.12.2021.
-
2021 (10) TMI 1360 - SC ORDER
Deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Appellant not entitled to deduction u/s 35(2AB) to the extent the expenses eligible for deduction under the said provision pertained to a unit entitled for deduction under Section 10B - HC held insofar as it pertains to the finding that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act is hereby quashed - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
........
|
