Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2021 2021 (1) 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 81 to 100 of 1320 Records

• 2021 (1) TMI 1242 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- It is quite evident that, firstly, assessee had own substantial fund for making the investment; and secondly, the assessee had duly explained and demonstrated that the loan funds could not have been utilized for the purpose of investment. Under these circumstances, the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D (2)(ii) cannot be made and has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A).

  As decided in own case [2018 (5) TMI 1021 - ITAT DELHI] assessee has kept all the funds in one common pool, the presumption that the investment has been made from interest bearing funds cannot be appreciated, since for the year under consideration assessee has substantially demonstrated before Ld.CIT(A) regarding sufficient funds being available for investment purposes other than the interest/bearing funds which has not been refuted by Ld. CIT-D.R. CIT(A) has observed that the funds are to be strictly utilised by assessee as per guidelines issued by RBI - submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel regarding there being no details that was filed by assessee in order to demonstrate the non-utilisation of interest bearing funds for the purpose of investments that could yield dividend income. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1241 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Clandestine removal - corroborative evidences - whether the electronic evidence collected during the course of the investigation by the appellant is properly taken into consideration by the Tribunal for adjudication in the appeal or not? - it was held by Gujarat High Court that In view of the findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration out of the impugned order.

  HELD THAT:- There are no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution -

  The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1240 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Works contract or not - activity carried on by the assessee, would be amenable to tax or not, as against the works contract - HELD THAT:- In matters pertaining to tax, the court will have to be very slow in exercising the power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Perhaps, the learned single judge in TVL. UNIQUE TRADERS, VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER – 1, VIRUTHUNAGAR. [2020 (6) TMI 328 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] entertained the writ petition and allowed it in view of the law governing at the relevant point of time. Be that as it may, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Unique Traders, there is no controversy over the legal issue and the learned single judge has not gone into the factual issues involved.

  The assessee was pursuing the remedy before this court. Therefore, it would only be appropriate to permit the assessee to file a statutory appeal, particularly, when there is a change of law, which has arisen subsequently resolving the conflicting decisions rendered by this court.

  The assessee is permitted to file a statutory appeal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1239 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - petitioner did not disclose the income out of sale consideration in his return or otherwise before the Department prior to the case being selected for scrutiny - petitioner failed to disclose the income arising out of transfer of long terms capital assets to the tune of ₹ 59,49,000/- in the return filed in the A.Y. 2014-15 despite the sale of his landed property at Bokaro through registered sale on 24.06.2013 i.e., in the F.Y. 2013-14 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner had not disclosed his assets before the income tax department in any of the preceding three assessment years. It was only upon perusal of CIB information extracted from ITD application that it was found that he had sold immovable property of ₹ 59,49000/-but neither the sale consideration nor capital gains was shown by him in the return filed in the A.Y. 2014-15. In those circumstances his case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for assessment. During the course of assessment, petitioner filed a calculation sheet claiming exemption instead of filing a revised return disclosing income arisen from transfer of long terms capital asset due to transfer of his landed property at Bokaro through registered sale deed dated 24.06.2013. It is well settled that such additional claim cannot be made before the assessing officer under the Act to make an amendment in the return without filing a revised return.

  This Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case, noted above, finds that there is lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. On the one hand, he has not disclosed the assets in any of the returns of three previous years to the year i.e. F.Y 2013-14 corresponding to A.Y. 2014-15. On the other hand, after his case being taken up for scrutiny, without filing the revised return, he sought to raise additional claim for exemption under section 54 F of the Act by filing calculation sheet before the Assessing Officer which was rightly denied in the light of the decision Goetze (India) Limited [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] - He straightaway approached the Revisional Authority. Before the Revisional Authority, he failed to appear despite repeated notices. Given the limited scope of revisional power, the Commissioner, Income Tax considering the grounds urged by the petitioner and upon analysis of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, did not find any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the findings on the basis of the materials on record. Being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Authority, the writ petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction.

  Upon consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon analyzing the relevant materials on record including the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Revisional Authority in the light of the decisions referred to hereinabove and relied upon by the parties, we do not find any error in law or on facts warranting interference in the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

  Alternative remedy has been raised against the order imposing penalty as is available under Section 246 A(1)(i)(B) - Petitioner however submits that petitioner may be allowed liberty to assail the order of penalty before the Appellate Authority under Section 246(1)(i) (B) of the Act. We may observe herein that this Court has refused to interfere in the order of the Assessing Authority and the Revisional Authority on consideration of the grounds available under the powers of judicial review. We however leave it to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, as per the provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of penalty dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent no.3- Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, if permissible in law. It is made clear that the Appellate Authority may consider the plea of the petitioner uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court hereinabove. WP dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1238 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH
  

  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:- The petitioner has failed to establish that the Unsecured Loan he has granted falls within the scope of “Financial Debt” in the absence of any Loan Agreement/board Resolution setting out the terms & conditions of the agreement.

  Also, we shall not go into the question of whether any amount is due from the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner or not here and shall only limit us to the issue that whether the petitioner has fulfilled the characteristics of a “Financial Creditor” as defined under Section 7 of the Code or not.

  Due to the insufficient evidence/documents provided by the petitioner in the present case, this application is hereby rejected.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1237 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Section 100 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court to permit him to approach the Appellate Authority and file the appeal as against the impugned order by granting reasonable time.

  This writ petition is disposed of giving three (3) weeks time to the petitioner from today to enable him to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority as against the impugned order AAR No.28/AP/GST/2019, dated 15.07.2019.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1236 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, COURT - III
  

  CIRP in process - Operational Creditor has already filed the claim before the IRP/RP - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor may be given liberty to revive the Petition. Liberty prayed for is granted, the Petition is dismissed being infructuous.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1235 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Sections 33(1), 33(2) and 33(3) of the I&B Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1234 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - personal guarantor to Corporate Debtor - Personal Guarantors are different entities or not - prerequisite for maintainability of an application under Section 95 of the IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the records that the Hon’ble NCLAT passed an order setting aside the order of admission of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 09.09.2021 granting time to the Corporate Debtor to settle the dues of Union Bank of India within six months, and liberty to proceed with Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor in the event of default. Since the debt of the Respondent/Creditor herein was not cleared they have filed application under Section 7 of IBC before this Tribunal against the Corporate Debtor and the same is now pending before this Tribunal. Hence, as far as the Creditor SBI is concerned, there is a CIRP pending against the Corporate Debtor.

  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India and Ors [2021 (5) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT] upheld the constitutional validity of the notification by which Section 2(e) was inserted. It was categorically held that personal guarantors, in view of their intrinsic connection with Corporate Debtors shall be dealt differently through same adjudicating process as Corporate Debtor. The impugned notification, similarly inter alia makes the provisions of the Code applicable in respect of Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors, as another such category of persons to whom the Code has been extended.

  Moreover, the State Bank of India who filed the IBAs under consideration already filed CP(IB)/43/KOB/2021 which is pending adjudication. The Hon’ble NCLAT only set aside the Order passed in favour of the Union Bank of India against the Corporate Debtor. The Guarantors of the Corporate Debtor may be the same in both Insolvency Applications, but as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Personal Guarantors are different entities and the Creditors may initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against them.

  In a situation where Application(s) in relation to the Corporate Debtor for initiation of CIRP is pending at National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) then, initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor is not a prerequisite for maintainability of an application under Section 95 of the IBC, 2016 filed for initiating Insolvency Resolution Process against the Personal Guarantor of that Corporate Debtor before the NCLT - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1233 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Late payments towards EPF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) - deposits prior to filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) - HELD THAT:- As relying on RAJA RAM VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 3 AND SANCHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (11) TMI 370 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI & PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1232 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
  

  Dissolution of the corporate person - Section 59(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Regulation 38 (3) of IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017 - HELD THAT:- All necessary compliances are met by the Company under Liquidation and the Liquidator. Therefore, this Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (8) of Section 59 of I&B Code, 2016, do hereby orders the dissolution of the Corporate Person viz., Tennant Cleaning Systems India Private Limited, from the date of this Order.

  The Corporate Person stands dissolved, and the Liquidator stands relieved, who is directed to preserve a physical or an electronic copy of the reports, registers, and books of account, referred to in Regulations 8 and 10 of IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process), Regulations, 2017, for at least eight (8) year after the dissolution of the Corporate Person, either with himself or with an information utility.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1231 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH
  

  Seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern - forfeiting the performance security and to initiate penal action as per section 74 (3) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Resolution Plan has been already approved by this Tribunal - whether the applicant has any locus standi to file the applications, especially for liquidating the Corporate Debtor when a Resolution Plan has been already approved by this Tribunal and the Resolution Applicant has taken over the Corporate Debtor and its properties, as also the revival of the Corporate Debtor factory is under process?

  HELD THAT:- If the Corporate Debtor acts in a manner that infringes the norms of the Resolution Plan, then that can be contested. Moreover, any stakeholder’s right stands violated as a consequence of this infringement, he can make an application to the Adjudicating Authority for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as per Section 33 (3) of the Code - A liquidation proceeding shall be initiated only when the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process fails. Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 sets out the conditions laying down three scenarios wherein liquidation proceedings can be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. In a situation where a Resolution Applicant succeeds as Corporate Debtor but it fails to comply with its assurance in terms of the resolution plan, what step is to be taken has already been laid down in Sub-Section (3) of Section 33 of the I&B Code.

  The expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized - It is significant to point out that pre-occupation of the ‘I & B’ Code with ‘timely resolution of insolvency’ is an important factor. In so far as ‘Liquidation’ is concerned, it destroys the organizational capital etc. ‘I & B’ Code allows ‘Liquidation’ only on failure of ‘CIRP’ and it facilitates/encourages resolution in several manners.

  This Bench approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA), a Statutory authority of the Government of Kerala pursuant to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the COC with 92.72% voting rights - the claim of the applicant was also settled in accordance with the Resolution Plan on 19th March 2021 paying ₹ 12,87,926 within 45 days as provided under the Resolution Plan. The mere allegation that CoC has not constituted the Monitoring Committee and that the conduct of the first meeting of the purported Board would not hold water.

  This Tribunal, taking note of the entire conspectus of the attendant facts and circumstances of the instant case in an encircling manner and also keeping in mind the plea taken by the ex- Resolution Professional that out of 145.60 Crores, 144.96 Crore has been disbursed to the stakeholders immediately and balance 0.64 Crore is pending in the accounts of Hindustan Newsprint Limited due to incorrect account details of certain claimants, returned amount due to dormant account details, for which the communication has been sent to claimants to the available Email. The ex-Resolution Professional to disburse the balance amount finding out the correct account details and complete the process without further delay.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1230 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
  

  Seeking approval of Resolution Plan - section 31 of IB Code and Regulation 39 (4) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Process of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the Resolution Plan shows that the Financial Creditor will get a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- against the their total claimed amount of ₹ 12,44,9,127/-. The Operational Creditors would receive a sum of ₹ 4,28,000/- as against their total claimed of ₹ 8,56,85,662/- and provisions for statutory liabilities has been made to the tune of ₹ 1,07,800/- and Resolution Applicant also made the provisions of contingent liabilities of ₹ 1,00,000/-. There is no claim submitted by the workmen. Thus, in sum and substance, the Resolution Plan provides for settlement of claim of various stakeholders. It is also noted that the Resolution Plan provides the background of successful Resolution Applicant and its associates. It also provides the details of financial capabilities of the successful Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Plan also provides implementation of Resolution plan within 60 days from the date of approval of the plan by this Authority - the Resolution plan also provides for appointment of RP as the person in-charge to look after the implementation of Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan has also addressed the issues which resulted into Insolvency of the Corporate Debtor and future business plan so as to such situation does not arise again.

  Thus, the revised 'Resolution Plan' filed with the Application meets the requirements of Section 30(2) of I&B Code, 2016 and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39 (4) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016. The 'Resolution Plan' is also not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A, affidavit under section 29A has also been filed by the Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Professional has also certified that the 'Resolution Plan' approved by the CoC does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force. The Compliance Certificate is placed on record. The 'Resolution Plan' has been approved by the CoC with 100% voting share.

  The Resolution Plan is approved - the approved 'Resolution Plan' shall become effective from the date of passing of this order - application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1229 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - continuation of Status-Quo Order till the next date of hearing - possession of the immovable asset of the Corporate Debtor mortgaged to the Bank has been taken possession by resorting measures under Section 13(4) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has taken into consideration of taking possession by Appellant before expiry of 60 days. The possession having not been taken in accordance with law the title of the property still vests in Corporate Debtor, which need to be protected to safeguard the interests of Corporate Debtor as well as other Creditors.

  The Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 31st December, 2021 indicates that the Status-Quo Order dated 30.09.2021 has been continued till the next date of hearing. We have been informed by the Learned Counsel for the parties that the matter both on I.A. 4516 of 2021 as well as the main CP (IB) No. 472/2021 has been fixed for 15th February, 2022. The Order dated 30.09.2021 is now continuing for last more than three months and now 15th February, 2022 is the next date fixed in the matter, we are of the view that at this stage it is not necessary for us to express any final opinion regarding the various issues raised by the parties regarding title and ownership of the immovable properties whether it is still in ownership of the Corporate Debtor or stand transferred to Yes Bank Limited. What is nature of claim of the Financial Creditor-Dewan Housing Finance Corporate Limited quo the immovable property which is also mortgaged to Yes Bank Limited, all these issues have to be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority finally.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1228 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Disqualification of directors - Section 164 and 167 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The Petitioners, being directors in two companies, following MUKUT PATHAK & ORS., YOGESH KHANTWAL, AARTI KHANTWAL, AND VINEET WADHWA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [2019 (11) TMI 319 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Petitioners’ DIN/DSC in respect of Talent Scanner Pvt. Ltd., would be liable to be reactivated and the Petitioners would not be treated as suspended from the position of directors in Talent Scanner Pvt. Ltd. Insofar as Bhargava Films Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the Petitioners are permitted to file the relevant documents and seek condonation of delay in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations, if the same is permissible.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1227 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - pre-existing-dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The existence of dispute is evident from the letter dated 31.01.2019 by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor.

  It is further pertinent to mention that the existence of dispute is evident from the letter dated 29.03.2019 issued by Operational Creditor whereby, the Operational Creditor had referred the dispute to the Ld. Arbitrator for outstanding payment of ₹ 6,49,94,661/- and proposed the name of Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Additional District and Session Judge (Retd.) in pursuant to Arbitration & Conciliation Act. In pursuance of letter dated 29.03.2019 issued by the Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor by its letter dated 04.04.2019 had again informed about deteriorated quality of Crude Palm Oil of Edible Grade and asked the Operational Creditor to pay an amount of ₹ 50 crores towards losses incurred by the Corporate Debtor - The Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Additional District and Session Judge (Retd.) after consideration of the disputes raised by both the parties, had passed an Arbitral Award dated 24.09.2019 whereby the Ld. Sole Arbitrator dismissed the Claim being premature and also dismissed the Counter Claim of the Corporate Debtor by recording that the same would be considered only after the Claimant (Operational Creditor herein) has failed to take all possible legal remedies to recover the Claim of the Respondent with the supplier.

  It is clear that the dispute must exist before the receipt of demand notice. Be that as it may, on appraisal of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels, it emerges that there were disputes existing prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice - since there is a pre-existing dispute between the parties, we have no option but to reject the prayer of the Operational Creditor to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of IBC, 2016.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1226 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Admission of additional evidence by CIT-A - As per AO evidences not been forwarded to the AO to examine & verify the same and thereby violated the provisions contained under Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Since the evidence entertained by Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings has not seen the light of the day during assessment proceedings and AO has never been given an opportunity to look into and verify the facts taken in the additional evidence, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence liable to be set aside.

  Consequently, case is remitted back to the AO to decide afresh, in the light of the directions issued by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal BAJAJ ENERGY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ ENERGY PVT. LTD.) [2017 (10) TMI 1595 - ITAT MUMBAI] after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1225 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Appellant seeking benefit of probation on the ground that the sentence already undergone by him would cast a stigma on his profession and he would be disqualified by the ICAI - moral turpitude - incident qua which the Petitioner was convicted took place in 2001, i.e., much prior to him qualifying and being enrolled as a CA - Section 8(v) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 - HELD THAT:- A conviction for an offence involving ‘moral turpitude’ punishable with imprisonment- is a third and higher class of offence under Section 8(v) of the Act and is stipulated as a separate class of disabilities which bars a person’s name from being entered or borne in/continued in the register of the ICAI. This is a graver offence, in terms of the scheme of the Act, juxtaposed to what is contemplated under the third part of the Second Schedule or the fourth part of the First Schedule to the Act.

  Although, from a bare reading of sub-section 8(v), it may appear that the Central Government would have the power to remove the disability even in offences involving ‘moral turpitude’, in the opinion of this Court, in case of an offence or a conviction involving ‘moral turpitude’, such power being vested with the Central Government would be contrary to the spirit of the statute as also contrary to the settled judicial precedents, to the effect that `moral turpitude’ would be a complete disqualification. The use of the expression “entered in” contained in Section 8, also shows that offences committed prior to the person qualifying as a CA are also within the purview of the disabilities mentioned under Section 8 of the Act. The only condition upon which a person convicted can be entered into or can continue on the register of ICAI, would be if the person has been granted a pardon.

  The Petitioner’s conviction would be attracted by the disability of ‘moral turpitude’ as contemplated under Section 8(v) of the Act. The ICAI shall award reasonable time for the Petitioner to file a fresh reply to the impugned notices, and for him to be heard by the ICAI in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Upon the said hearing being concluded, ICAI shall proceed in accordance with law.

  Directions to ICAI - HELD THAT:- As is evident from the facts of the present case, the Petitioner, despite a criminal case being pending at the time of his enrolment as a Chartered Account and thereafter his conviction, was enrolled and was permitted to practice as a CA. This Court has not been shown any policy or disclosure requirements that are asked for from candidates or CAs either at inception or thereafter. There is a clear need for the ICAI to create a framework wherein there is proper disclosure by candidates who apply to become Chartered Accountants, at the inception itself.

  In the case of an FIR or a Criminal Complaint having been filed, there ought to be an obligation upon the applicant to keep the ICAI informed and updated, as to the progress in the said Complaint/Case. ICAI shall accordingly frame a policy and a mechanism, if not already in existence, for disclosure by members both at the inception as also on a periodic basis thereafter, of any criminal cases or convictions so that the spirit and intent of the statute is given effect to and the ICAI is not in the dark about the same until it is notified by some information or complaint

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1224 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Late deposit of employees shares of Provident Fund (PF) - Contributions deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing of return of income - HELD THAT:- As relying on RAJA RAM VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 3 AND SANCHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (11) TMI 370 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI & PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  Educational Cess being deductible expenditure - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered in assessee's favour by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT, [2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that since the term “Cess” is not included in clause (ii) of section 40(a)of the I.T. Act, 1961, there is no prohibition in claiming the same as a deduction in computing income chargeable under head of profits and gains of business or profession.

  Education cess is not a disallowable expenditure under section 40(a)(ii) - we are of the considered opinion that education cess and secondary education cess paid on income tax is an allowable expenditure. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1223 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH
  

  Direction to Respondent No.1/Operational Creditor to repay with interest the money wrongfully received and retained under the three SWIFT remittances to be returned to the Bank Account of the Corporate Debtor along with applicable interest at the rate of 18% p.a. calculated from the date of receipt of payments till actually repaid - HELD THAT:- It is seen that as per the audited account as on 31st March, 2019 the dues payable to the Respondent No.1 (Operational Creditor) is ₹ 91,05,994/- and this fact was admitted by the applicant stating that the audited accounts have been finalized even before the admission of the Corporate Debtor under CIRP. This Tribunal also while admitting the aforesaid Application relied on the Audited Accounts and based on the same it was held that the amount payable to Respondent No.1 (Operational Creditor) is more than the threshold limit of one lakh rupees.

  While admission of the matter, during arguments, the Corporate Debtor has not raised any of the points raised in this application, as the applicant was silent waiving the Corporate Debtor right to file an appeal, if the Corporate Debtor was really aggrieved by the aforesaid admission of the matter. Without taking recourse of the remedies available to them, now they have come up with this application to release them from the process of CIRP revoking the order of this Tribunal passed on 7/11/2019. The applicant in the guise of an application under Section 60(5) of the IB Code is trying to re-open an admitted matter which cannot be allowed. Since the matter has attained finality and the Resolution Professional has already filed an application for approval of the Resolution Plan, and that the claim put forward by the Operational Creditor through IA(IBC)/33/KOB/2021 has been dismissed by this Tribunal, it is too late to pass any orders in this matter.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

123456789........ 66