|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1666 Records
-
2017 (10) TMI 1590
Attachment of properties of petitioners - Invocation of section 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- It is evident that impugned notices have been issued by the authorities in view of provisions of the MPID Act promulgated by State of Maharashtra for curbing the unscrupulous activities of Financial Establishments in the State. The Act provides for attachment of properties of Financial Establishments to ensure return of the deposits made by the public. It appears that authorities in Union Territory, Chandigarh and States of Punjab and Haryana have merely acted on the basis of communications/notices received from the appropriate authority in State of Maharashtra.
Investigation pursuant to FIR No. 216 dated 30.09.2013 registered at police station MRA Manj, District Mumbai and sections 3 & 4 of the MPID Act appears to be pending at Mumbai. No ground is thus, made out for entertaining these petitions by this court.
Petition dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1589
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - whether the respondent has raised a ‘dispute’ or paid the money after service of the Demand Notice? - HELD THAT:- Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Code says that the operational creditor shall along with the application furnish an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate-debtor relating to a dispute of unpaid operational debt. It is stated in the affidavit dated 21.08.2017 of Pravin Gupta at page 257 of the Paper Book that the respondent has given reply to the notice which is attached with the petition but it is contended that the contents of the reply do not show the existence of a dispute but only illusory defence.
The primary document to support this contention of the petitioner is the issuance of Form C dated 20.06.2017 by the respondent-corporate debtor in respect of all the seven invoices. The transaction between the parties having taken place, the respondent was bound to issue Form C and in any case this by itself cannot be said to be a settlement of dispute between the parties for enabling the petitioner to trigger the insolvency resolution process - the present case cannot be said to be a matter where there is no dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor enabling the petitioner to an order of admission. Rather all this correspondence which the petitioner has attached with the present case, emanated before the issuance of demand notice dated 25.07.2017. In response to the demand notice, the respondent has taken the stand relating to the quality of the goods.
There being existence of a dispute relating to the quality of the goods, the instant petition is rejected.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1588
Alternative claim of the assessee u/s. 10A - Denial of deduction u/s 10B - export oriented unit of the assessee had obtained approval only from the Director of the Software Technology Parks of India which is not a valid approval for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s. 10B - HELD THAT:- Sec.10A(2)(i)(b) states that benefit of 10A applies to any undertaking commencing its operation on or after 01st day of April 1994 in any Electronic Hardware Technology Park or as the case may be Software Technology Park. The units commencing its operations on or after 01st day of April, 1981 in any Free Trade Zone is separately dealt with in sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of sub-section 2 of section 10A and hence, the submissions of the learned Departmental representative that only units set-up in Free Trade Zone are eligible and are covered by Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not correct. In the Paper Book filed by assessee the certificate of the Chartered Accountant filed in Form 56F for the financial years 2009-10, and 2010-11 corresponding to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively certifying the compliance of the claim made for deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been enclosed. The certificate of registration issued by Electronic Software Technology Park of India, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the assessee has been enclosed .
The eligibility of the unit registered with STPI to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Act has been discussed at length in the order of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. QBurst Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1755 - ITAT COCHIN] - we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in allowing the alternative plea of the assessee u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act. - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1587
Disallowance of expenses incurred - assessee did not had any business activity - legal and professional fees relating to legal proceedings/appeals incurred towards defending the legal rights with respect to the business activities carried out by the assessee - assessee explained that the expenses involved are broadly legal expenses and the assessee was continuously doing business activities for which he took us to various pages of the paper book - whether the payment of legal fee is an allowable deduction? - HELD THAT:- We find that Section 37(1) does not make any distinction between expenditure incurred in civil litigation and that incurred in criminal litigation. All that the court has to see is whether the legal expenses were incurred by the assessee in his character as a trader, in other words, whether the transaction in respect of which proceedings are taken arose out of and was incidential to assessee's business. Further, it is to be seen whether the expenditure was bonafidely incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business.
Issue of quantum of the expenditure to be incurred is concerned, we are of the view, it is for the assessee to decide how best to protect his own interest. It is not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure.
In the case of Gannon Dunkarlay and Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1997 (12) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the expenditure was incurred by the official liquidator to maintain the infrastructure of the company held that the expenditure was deductible u/s 57(iii), as it would not have been possible to earn the interest income without incurring such expenditure.
As we are of the considered opinion that in defending the litigation, the fee/legal expenses paid by the assessee is an allowable deduction, more specifically when the expenses were incurred to safeguard the business of the assessee. The payment of legal expenses even has not been disputed by the Revenue and were merely disallowed that during the period, no business activity was carried out by the assessee. However, as mentioned earlier, we find that the assessee did business activity, therefore, in the absence of any contrary material, we allow this ground as the legal expenses/fees were incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively to safeguard its business interest - as admitted by assessee that professional fee stand disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) as tax deducted at source was not deposited to the credit of Central Government before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. This ground of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1586
CENVAT Credit - capital goods or not - goods used in the machineries installed in their factory for production - goods used in the machineries installed in their factory for production - inputs or not - Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - applicability of decision of the Tribunal's larger Bench in VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS CCE [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench in the case of M/S. THIRU AROORAN SUGARS, M/S. DALMIA CEMENTS (BHARAT) LTD. VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has also taken into account, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that, the issue raised in the said batch of cases cannot be decided on the basis of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT], but, only on the basis of SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III [2011 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT].
In the impugned order, the CESTAT, SZ, Chennai, by only relying upon the Larger Bench decision of the VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS CCE [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)], has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, rejecting the contention that the Structurals and allied materials claimed to be parts of the capital goods/inputs capable of claiming Cenvat credit. Since the issue raised before the Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ought not to have been decided only on the basis of the decision of the Larger Bench of the CESTAT in Vandana Global's case, and in view of number of decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court, the impugned Judgment of the CESTAT, is liable to be interfered with.
The substantial questions of law raised herein by the assessee, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1585
Nature of expenditure - Addition on account of capital expenditure being net present value paid to forest department - HELD THAT:- As payments to the Government are to be paid once the mining lease is obtained and such payments are governed by various Acts along with the Apex Court making a ruling for State Governments to participate in the granting of mining lease by recovering compensation when their forests are uprooted. Therefore for this purpose, the funds are used for a natural regeneration which the assessee participates indirectly. Therefore at no point of time could it be said that the assessee had incurred a capital expenditure giving the assessee a benefit of enduring nature for the purpose of earning segmented income to render the same to income tax - authorities below have not pointed out the income generated against the purported deferred revenue expenditure so proposed by them in their impugned orders - Decided in favour of assessee.
Nature of expenses - compensatory afforestation expenses - revenue v/s capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- NPV to the forest department was paid on account of the judgment of the Apex Court. The lesser of the land for mining was not aware of the NPV payable to forest department at the time of obtaining the lease from the Government. It was paid on account of the judgment of the Apex Court during the pendency of the mining lease. But the amount paid under the head ‘compensatory afforestation expenses’ was known to the assessee at the time of leasing of the mining land. It is compulsory for each and every user of mining land to pay the afforestation expenses to forest department to compensate the use of forest land for mining towards regeneration of forest for diversion of forest to non-forest use. Since this payment is inextricably linked to the mining rights of the assessee, this payment is of capital nature and the lower authorities have rightly treated the same accordingly. We accordingly find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals).
Disallowance of lease rental payments - No documentary evidence to prove that crystallization was done in the impugned assessment year - HELD THAT:- No doubt lease rent is revenue expenditure and it should be debited to the account every year when it becomes due. The assessee was also asked to file some evidence in support of his contention that for certain reasons the lease rent was not paid and disputes were settled during the impugned assessment year. But no evidence was furnished on behalf of the assessee. Undisputedly lease rent is recurring expenditure and it should be paid every month. Since the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting, the lease rental should be debited to its books of account in their respective years unless any dispute is raised. We therefore do not find any force in the contention of the assessee in the absence of any documentary evidence that crystallization was done in the impugned assessment year - CIT(Appeals) who has rightly disallowed the prior period expenses.
Disallowance of provision for medical expenses - company is reimbursing the medical expenses based on the employees claim and liability against medical reimbursement accrues on submission of medical reimbursement claim by employees - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the payment of medical reimbursement was made on receipt of claim from the employees. The said payment can be made during the financial year. In the absence of claim, there is no ascertained liability which are to be discharged by the assessee. Therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with the order of CIT(Appeals) that liability itself is a contingent liability. Therefore the provision for contingent liability has to be disallowed. We therefore confirm the order of CIT(Appeals) as we find no error in it.
Disallowance of leave travel allowance - HELD THAT:- As the claim of provision of leave travel allowance was also disallowed by the AO for the similar reasons as the payment of medical reimbursement. For the same reasons as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals) and we confirm the same.
Disallowance of foreign travel expenses - Since the expenditure relating to new project on acquisition of mine is a capital expenditure and not incurred in connection with business carried on by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As we find that undisputedly the assessee has undertaken the foreign travel in connection with the purchase of mines at Thailand. The assessee claimed expenditure incurred thereon as revenue expenditure on the ground of expansion of old business, but no details in support of its claim were furnished. It is also not disputed that the assessee has purchased mines at Thailand, therefore expenditure incurred in acquiring capital asset has to be capital expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated the issue in detail in his order and we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, we confirm his order.
Nature of expenditure - Stamp duty for registration and processing fee of the mining lease was claimed to be revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find that the lower authorities have adjudicated the issue following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hotel Rajmahal [1984 (3) TMI 24 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Since the lower authorities have decided the issue following the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(Appeals).
Disallowance of mining lease rent - DR has contended that annual lease rent is fixed at the time of granting the licence for mining - HELD THAT:- No evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate that this liability was ever disputed by the assessee. Therefore, it is to be debited to the profit & loss account annually every year. We find no evidence on record that the liability was disputed in the earlier years and it is crystallized only in the impugned assessment year. Mere notice of demand does not demonstrate that liability was disputed in the earlier years and it is crystallized in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we find no merit in the contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(Appeals), who has rightly disallowed the prior period expenses.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1584
Exemption u/s 11 - charitable object u/s 2(15) - assessee was performing, broadly answers the description of “education” but it charges extremely high rates of fee which, in fact, amounts to commercialization of education - HELD THAT:- The findings of the Tribunal, we notice, are that the essential objects of the respondent – assessee continue to be the same i.e. providing education to schools. The Revenue’s reliance on Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, [1997 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] is of no avail. The ITAT had considered that judgment and analyzed the facts of this case in the light of both the previous judgments as well as the later ruling in Queen’s Educational Society [2015 (3) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT]
The Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the Revenue’s appeal; objects for the respondent – assessee remained unaltered. The extent of fees charged by it ipso facto cannot be the basis to conclude that the purpose for which it was set up had changed.
Diversion under Section 13(3) - Goodwill and monetary value of the trade mark, which arose in the course of the respondent’s activities, ought to have accrued to it rather than the owner - The Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s reasoning on this aspect too is merited. Besides, the use of a trade mark per se does not confer an advantage upon the licensee or authorized user – under Section 40(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the benefit of such use accrues to the owner. This aspect too has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court and later affirmed in Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT [2016 (12) TMI 123 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2017 (10) TMI 1583
Permission for withdrawal of petition - amicable settlement of matter or not - HELD THAT:- Both the parties confirm that the matter has been amicably settled. The Petitioner has therefore instructed his counsel to withdraw the present petition.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1582
Execution of work relating to by-pass pertaining to time period - Termination Payment on account of default by the Concessionaire - deductions on account of NHAI's claims or that the recoveries or adjustments - HELD THAT:- Termination payment under clause 37.3.1 is not payable to the Concessionaire for the Concessionaire's default occurring prior to COD. The expression "COD" has been defined in the definition clause of the Concessionaire Agreement as "Commercial Operation Date", which has its meaning as set forth in clause 15.1. Clause 15.1 stipulates that four-laning shall be deemed to be complete when completion certificate or provisional certificate, as the case may be, is issued under the provisions of Article/clause 14 and accordingly the Commercial Operation Date of the project shall be the date on which such completion certificate or provisional certificate is issued. The Concessionaire is entitled to collect fee and receive payments in accordance with the Article/clause 27 of the Concessionaire Agreement after issue of COD.
It is clear from the reading of the definition that the expression the "debt due" refers to the principal amount of debt provided by the Senior lender under the Financing Agreement but excluding any part of the principal that had fallen due for repayment two years prior to the transfer date. The principal amount should be for financing the Total Project Cost. It also includes aggregate interest, financing fees, and charges which had fallen due within one year prior to the transfer date and excludes penal interest and other charges and also pre payment charges on accelerate payments. Thus, there is specific and clear-cut definition of the "debt due" which would become payable under clause 37.3.1 of the Concession Agreement.
We would have to reject the contention of the appellant, NHAI that for the purpose of Clause 37.3.1 interest component of ₹ 19.4 crores or recoveries of ₹ 242.42 crores can be adjusted. This is impermissible and not what is stated and permitted under Clause 37.3.1 or under expressions Debt Due or Total Project Cost - we do not think that the appellant NHAI can make adjustment on account of the recoveries which it claims are payable by JSTL, or exclude accrued interest of ₹ 19.4 crores on account of alleged willful default by JSTL. The said adjustment being impermissible and not as per the mandate of the clauses mentioned above, are unsustainable.
The impugned order takes care of the interest of NHAI as it directs furnishing of an unconditional, irrevocable bank guarantee in favour of the NHAI for an amount not exceeding ₹ 348.604 crores and only upon the said guarantee being furnished deposit of the same figure is to be made in the escrow account. The bank guarantee is subject to final award of the arbitral tribunal. The impugned order also notices the adverse impact and the consequences which JSTL would suffer in case of non-deposit of the termination payment in the escrow account, which would have the effect of declaring the account of JSTL as non-performing asset which would amount to irreparable loss and injury.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1581
Dishonor of Cheque - question raised in this appeal is a pure question of law - amount in dispute is only ₹ 60,000/- - HELD THAT:- This Court in VINOD KUMAR VERMA VERSUS RANJEET SINGH RATHORE [2016 (5) TMI 1556 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] has in similar circumstances where the complaint under the Act had been dismissed in default observed that the order passed by the learned court below is extremely harsh. Moreover, the learned court below has not at all considered as to whether personal attendance of the complainant was essential on the date for the progress of the case.
The aforesaid ratio is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case and, therefore, the appeal could have been allowed on this ground alone - it is further found that an additional ground to allow the appeal while dismissing the complaint for default, the learned trial Magistrate was required to follow the procedure.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1580
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - pledge/mortgage of property - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the FC had initiated the proceeding under Section 19 (3) Of the ORT Act not only against the principal debtor-- but- also against the guarantors in respect Of loan sanctioned in favour of the principal debtor. It is also not in dispute that the CD herein being one of the guarantors was made a party to the aforesaid proceeding before the DRT, Kolkata - There is also no quarrel over the fact that in the proceeding before the ORT, Kolkata, the FC has prayed for recovery certificate for an amount to the tune ₹ 121,41,39,813.00 of and also for enforcement of such certificate in the event, such a certificate is granted, and that too, by disposing the properties/assets Which the principal debtor pledged [mortgaged with the FC and if necessary, by also by disposing the property which the guarantors pledged 'mortgaged with the FC. Such revelations also show that the assets/properties of the Cd herein which were pledged / mortgaged with the FC in likely to disposed of in the event of the enforcement of the recovery certificate from the side of the DRT, Kolkata.
When such admitted or well evident positions are considered in the light Of laid down in section 14 of the Code of 2016, it would appear clearly that directions in the aforesaid section needs to be extended to proceeding in question, now pending before the DRT, Kolkata. Being so, in my opinion, in the event of admission Of the present application, this Adjudicating Authority would be required to declare by order moratorium for the purposes, so specified in Section 14 Of the Code Of 2016. In that event, the moratorium, declared would also cover the proceeding pending before the DRT, Kolkata.
The claim advanced from the side Of CD that the application in hand could not disclose even the "claim" as contemplated in sect•on 3(6), much less its such application establishing the fact that the CD owed a debt to the FC as on 11 .08.2017 or that there was a default in repayment Of loan on same date, same being 11.08.2017, are wholly without any element of truth.
The petition is admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1579
Maintainability of application filed under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the scheme under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 in absence of any proceedings in court, the judicial magistrate will not be required for the purpose of certifying the inventory or performing any function mentioned in the said section.
SLP disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1578
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IAB - income derived from 'Operation and Maintenance Activities' of SEZ are not eligible for such deduction - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2016 (8) TMI 696 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] from going through the proviso (2) of section 80-IAB of the Act as referred above, which says that if the work of operation and maintenance of SEZ is transferred from one developer to another then the deduction allowable in subsec. (1) of sec. 80-IAB will be allowed to transferee developer for the remaining period of the remaining of consecutive 10 years. This proviso gives a very clear picture that when the transferee is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IAB for the income from operation and maintenance of SEZ then certainly transferor i.e. developer is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IAB from operation and maintenance.
From going through the letter issued by Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industries dated 21st June, 2006 to the assessee for setting up of a sector specific Special Economic Zone for Pharmaceuticals at Ahmedabad, we find that in clause (ii) under the main clause (III) referring to general condition it reads that operation and maintenance of the facilities will be met as per the standard in the specific manner and proposition of the user.
Thus we are of the view that assessee being a developer of SEZ is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IAB for income earned from operation and maintenance of SEZ. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Depreciation on computer software licence - @60% instead of @25% allowed by the AO - HELD THAT:- It is almost a settled issue that software application which are having validity for long term period are basically system software on which computer hardware runs and it is impossible to use computer without having such software installed on it and, therefore, such licensed software are subject to depreciation @ 60% and Id. CIT(A) has done so. We find no reason to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) on this issue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1577
Addition on account of prior period expenses - HELD THAT:- The assessee is a government organization following the mercantile system of accounting where the expenses are recognized only when they are crystallized. It was further stated that these expenditure have been crystallized during the year and therefore there been accounted so. Assessee is also explained various reason why the expenditure have been crystallized during the year such as receipt of claim from subcontractors a later date when the work was duly carried out in completed in earlier years, acceptance of additional claims, receipt of invoices of materials and later date, measurement of work done by the client after the closing of the accounts, staff salary payments revision of pay structures etc with retrospective effect.
The identical issue arose in the case of the assessee wherein for assessment year 2006 2007 the Ld. CIT appeal has allowed the claim of the assessee relying upon the decision in case of Saurashtra cement and chemicals industries Ltd versus CIT [1994 (10) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT appeal as well as could not place before us any reason that the expenditure has not been crystallized during the year. - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1576
Scope of SCN - Orders show that the penalty has been imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 while SCN seeks to impose penalty u/r 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- It is on records and undisputed that the appellant herein had issued invoices during the period 2006-2010 in respect of the Customs Duty and the Cesses. The appellant herein is a first stage dealer and can issue the invoice only passing of the Cenvat credit in respect of the duties which can be passed on to purchasers. Since it is undisputed the Custom duty and Cesses which has been passed on by the appellant could not have been done so, there is violation of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Though the lower Authorities have imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Penal provisions under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 gets attracted in the case in hand in as much that there is passing of ineligible Cenvat credit by the appellant to their purchasers.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1575
Condonation of delay in filing the Miscellaneous Petition for rectification - HELD THAT:- Revenue has filed the Miscellaneous Petition beyond the period of six months provided under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no provision in the Income-tax Act to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Petition for rectification. Hence, the petition filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1574
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - dispute raised regarding quality of services or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The document preferred by ‘Operational Creditor’ was complete.
In so far dispute is concerned, any observations with regard to individual officer if made by a court of law or in a communication made by the ‘Operational Creditor’, the same cannot be treated to be an ‘existence of dispute’.
As there is no specific objection made by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ in writing, raising any dispute with regard to the quality of services as claimed to have been rendered by the Respondents-‘Operational Creditors’, no dispute can be raised at the stage of submitting reply under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the ‘I&B Code’.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1573
Bail application - scheduled offence - HELD THAT:- There are no good ground to interfere in the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that four other accused had entered into plea bargaining and necessary relief has been granted to them.
SLP disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1572
Jurisdiction of authority - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petition (Civil) against the relied upon order has been dismissed by the order of this Court dated 3rd October, 2017. Consequently, the present Special Leave Petition is also dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1571
Addition u/s 14A - Assessee challenging addition u/s 14A on the ground that the AO should not resort to disallowance u/s 14A without giving a finding as to correctness or otherwise of the claim of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income - CIT(A) restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income earned - HELD THAT:- Now law is settled that, disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Since the order of the CIT(A) is in consonance with settled proposition of law, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).
........
|
9911796707
