Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2021 2021 (6) This

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

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 1172 Records

• 2021 (6) TMI 1092 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL — CUTTACK BENCH
  

  Striking off the name of the company from the Register of Companies - seeking direction to Registrar of Companies, Odisha to revoke order passed by them under section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The Registrar of Companies did not have any objection for restoration of the company's name in the register. Only they have stated to the effect that order may be passed as may be deemed fit and appropriate depending on the merits of the case - There is nothing on available records in this matter to show that the struck off company was doing its business or was in operation during the relevant time. However, the petitioner has submitted that the struck off company has not paid its income dues for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 and the recovery proceedings are pending against them and it will be very difficult to recover the amount due if the company is struck off.

  In the interest of revenue and as the struck off company is liable to consequences under the Income-tax Act, it would be just to direct the Registrar of Companies, Odisha to restore the company's name in the Register of Companies - The Registrar of Companies, Odisha, the respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the company, i. e., M/s. Rajlaxmi Promoters P. Ltd., as if the name of the company has not been struck off from the register of companies with resultant and consequential actions like changing status of company from "strike off" to "active".

  The name is restored - application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1091 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking enlargement on bail - main allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners and the others, who are family members availed loans on the basis of inflated value of the properties mortgaged - wilful diversion of funds through various group accounts - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, bail can be granted under Section 45 (1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act? - twin conditions satisfied or not - HELD THAT:- In view of the amendment, the twin conditions must be satisfied, who seeks bail. A reading of this provision, will take us to the twin conditions that are imposed in Section 37 of NDPS Act. The wording 'in both the Section' are verbatim similar in nature. So, this shows the real purpose and object for which, this amendment has been introduced. So, I am of the considered view that the Parliament thought it fit to treat the offences against the economy on par with the offences against the health. That is why, we see verbatim reproduction of words used section 37 in NDPS Act into the provision of Money Laundering Act.

  The reason can be seen in the present day situation. At one end the economy of the country is growing and at another end, Offences against the economy, more particularly, Banking frauds are on the rise running to several Crores. The economic offences are more capable of destablishing the very sustenance of penniless Indian majority than affecting the society at large. When we approach this provision from this angle, we see more reason than one expressed in the words used. But, this is also greatly commented as draconian in nature. But as long as it remains in the Statute Book, it has to be applied with its full vigour and force - unless the petitioners satisfy the above important condition under Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, they cannot be granted bail even though they are in custody for more than 70 days.

  Entire case depends upon the documentary evidence - HELD THAT:- The question of tampering the evidence will not arise. So, according to the learned Senior counsel, continuation of detention will not serve any purpose. They are also ready to surrender their Passports; ready to abide any condition that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to co-operate with the investigation conducted by CBI as well as the Enforcement Directorate. According to them, these undertakings are sufficient enough for granting bail - Serious allegations have been levelled against these petitioners that they siphoned off the loan amount obtained from the Bank and forged documents for the purpose of laundering the money.

  Considering the stringent provision, the amount involved, the modes operandi adopted, they are not entitled for Bail - bail Petitions are dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1090 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of bail - raid - illegal sale of Coderine phosphate IT - offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 25 of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT:- This Court has considered following aspects;

  (a) The role attributed to the present applicant;

  (b) The applicant has been arraigned into the offence on basis of the statement of co-accused;

  (c) The bottles of cough syrup has been found from the main accused;

  (d) The applicant is having valid licence to deal with the medical products.

  (e) Prima facie, the investigation reveals that the allegation with regard to selling of the cough syrup appears to be related to only 22 bottles.

  (f) The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required at this stage, as the applicant has co-operated with the investigation.

  The applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - the present application is allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1089 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  

  Seeking approval of the Resolution Plan - Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - seeking directions for reinstatement of slots (including bilateral rights and traffic rights) to the Corporate Debtor - slots are present economic resource or are asset? - potential of generating income - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the Corporate Debtor ceased its operations from 17.04.2019. On the date of insolvency commencement i.e. on 20.06.2019, the Corporate Debtor was not in operation. It is not in dispute that the Corporate Debtor was not run as a going concern during the CIRP. Therefore, the protection of the licenses and concessions from termination or suspension would not be available to the Corporate Debtor.

  In the case of IN THE MATTER OF: UNION OF INDIA VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER, VIJAY KUMAR IYER VERSUS GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR IYER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDUS TOWER LTD. VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR IYER RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF AIRCEL LTD. AND DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. & ANR., TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS AIRCEL LTD. & ANR. TATWA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR IYER & ANR., TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. &ANR. [2021 (4) TMI 1300 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] the spectrum continued to be with the Telecom Company during the CIRP. In the instant case the slots cannot be regarded as ‘present economic resource’ of the Corporate Debtor. That being an important factor, is squarely lacking in the case of the Corporate Debtor.

  Whether the slots could be considered as an ‘asset’ of the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- Slots are airport specific and are dependent upon the Airline’s operating rights. The mechanism of allotment of slots, though integral to an operating airline, is a very complex and dynamic process upon which the entire flight schedule of an airport depends. The allotment of slots and their usage is like a constantly changing jigsaw puzzle. A single slot therefore could not be left or kept idle. The slots vacated by one Airline would have to go to another Airline for optimum utilisation of the slots and the capacity of the airport - As the guidelines would indicate the allotment of slots is not automatic and needs to be sought by the Airline twice a year respectively for the summer and winter seasons. Once the slots are not used by particular Airline or vacated by it, the same is immediately allotted to another in order to optimize airport capacity. As already indicated a slot in a Level-3 Airport could not be left idle.

  No documents however been placed to substantiate and to verify the terms and conditions expressed in relation to the transfer, if any, of the slots, presently held by Air India. Even otherwise the entity / company that would take it over would inherit what the Air India presently has. It can have no claim over what Air India, or for that matter any entity, does not have dominion over. The analogy could not be extended to the Corporate Debtor, in as much as the Corporate Debtor had been divested of these slots w.e.f. 17.04.2019 when it ceased operations and was not operating / using them on the date of the insolvency commencement - The facts and circumstances would indicate that presently the slots cannot be restored to the Corporate Debtor on a historic basis. The thumb rule being ‘use it or lose it’. Be that as it may, we must remember that running an Airline, much less reviving one, is not a facile business. It involves entire gamut of complex and diverse activities from land to sky and everything in between. In the present day air travel has rather become a necessity, than a luxury considered merely a decade back. Increase in the number of Airlines would encourage healthy competition and provide a level playing field to the operators. The result would only benefit the consumer.

  Considering the peculiar nature of slots allotment and its usage, the principle of slots allotment could not come within the commercial wisdom of the CoC. As already held the slots being not assets of the Corporate Debtor, the CoC’s decision on protection of historicity would not be of any help to the Corporate Debtor - The success of the Resolution Plan and its implementation is contingent upon certain future events as provided under Clause 7.6 of the Resolution Plan. Since the revival of the Corporate Debtor is dependent upon these factors, the CoC has approved the Resolution Plan taking into consideration the necessity of the conditions which are integral to the successful implementation of the Plan. Thus, the effective date also depends upon the conditions being fulfilled. Despite the effective date being uncertain the CoC has approved the same. Considering the peculiarity of the facts and totality of the circumstances, we feel it appropriate to agree with such decision of the CoC and its fiscal prudence, subject to the following.

  The Resolution Plan doesn’t take into account the dues of the employees and workmen during the CIRP period in view of the fact that except for 50 employees retained as ‘Asset Preservation Team’ of the Corporate Debtor none of the other employees or workmen were under the employment of the Corporate Debtor nor did they work for the Corporate Debtor during that period. Decision in that regard appears to be reasonable based on the principle of ‘no work no pay’.

  The instant Resolution Plan meets the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37 and 38 of the Regulations. The Resolution Plan is not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code and is in accordance with law. The same needs to be approved as provided under Section 31 of the Code - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1088 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of Bail - Availment of input tax credit without any transportation of goods - Section 132(1)(b)(c)(F) & (1) read with Section 5 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case is made out to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

  This bail application stands dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1087 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  TP Adjustment - Arm’s length price ‘ALP’ adjustment qua interest on receivables involving its overseas Associated Enterprises ‘AEs’ - CIT-DR’s contention that the TPO as well as the CIT(A) have rightly treated the foregoing bench mark as per the short term deposit rate in the State Bank of India and therefore, the same deserves to be upheld - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in Revenue’s instant argument since such a short term deposit cannot be taken at par with an international transaction u/s.92B of the Act as the latter involves foreign currency and overseas market conditions.

  In addition to this, learned lower authorities have also not adopted any comparable transaction in the very segment as well so as to come to the conclusion that the assessee’s receivables in case of overseas AEs involved more than the market practice of reasonable time period. We keep in mind all these clinching aspects and direct the TPO to delete the impugned ‘ALP’ adjustment in issue. The assessee’s sole substantive ground to this effect stands accepted in the above terms.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1086 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOCHI
  

  Approval of Resolution Plan - Corporate Debtor is a Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise or not - Annexure-A/1 is an Acknowledgement issued on 23.03.2015 by the Department of Industries, Government of Kerala valid for a period of 2 years which has already expired - Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- If the Corporate Debtor is a Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise is entitled to file the Resolution Plan, Section 240 A which specifically dispenses the applicability of Section 29A clause (c) to (h) in case the Corporate Debtor is a Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise as per the Amendment Act 26 of 2018. The intention behind the enactment of this provision was to grant exemptions to Corporate Debtor which are MSME(s), by permitting a promoter who is not a wilful defaulter or covered under any other specific disqualification as provided under Section 29A, to bid for the Resolution Plan of an MSME.

  In the present case as per Regulation 36-A Resolution Professional Published Form G, on 17.02.2020, within 35 days i.e. on 115th day, final list of the Resolution Applicant has to be prepared by the Resolution Professional. EoI was received from 2 Resolution Applicants, out of which one was found eligible. Further the 3rd CoC decided to extent the time for submission of EOI for further 10 days and reissue the FORM G. No fresh EoI has been received - In the 10th CoC meeting dated 20.11.2020 it was unanimously approved the Resolution Plan in compliance with the provisions of the I&B Code,2016. Applicants who are also a member of the CoC was silent during the CIRP period and they want to submit the plan after the approval of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority on 08.01.2021.

  As Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is a time bound measure, value maximization has also to be in time bound manner. At this late stage, this Tribunal cannot allow this application to set aside the approved Resolution Plan and allow the applicants to submit a Resolution Plan - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1085 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH
  

  Extension of timelines for RFRP while two Resolution Plans submitted before the CoC as per the earlier timelines are for consideration, by CoC - power of CoC to keep on extending timelines beyond 330 days in the guise of maximization of value - HELD THAT:- The two Resolution Plans pending before the committee were deliberated at length and the contents known to all the CoC members. The CoC in its commercial wisdom has requested the Resolution Professional to extend the RFRP timelines beyond 330 days with a view to give an opportunity to Vedanta Limited to submit their Resolution Plan in the name of value maximization of Corporate Debtor, albeit opportunity was given to the other two resolution applicants to revise their proposal. As this being status, the CoC and Resolution Professional have taken the process into their own hands even though they cannot extend timelines beyond 330 days unilaterally without the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. This action of Resolution Professional is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Code and its Regulations.

  The CoC and the Resolution Professional has categorically violated the timelines in the name of value maximization, thereby kept on extending the process beyond 330 days and CoC in its wisdom has stepped into the shoes of the Adjudicating Authority and extended the period without any rhyme or reason. The CoC has no business to extend RFRP beyond 330 days without the specific approval of the Adjudicating Authority - the Resolution Professional/CoC directed to consider the two plans received prior to last extension of RFRP timeline i.e. received before 330 days period to complete the CIRP.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1084 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction u/s 80P - Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the first appellate authority under the IT Act - HELD THAT:- We find that this is a case where the assessing authority has not applied the law as laid down by the Supreme Court on an issue that has been the subject matter of litigation for a considerable period of time. The reversal by the Supreme Court was itself of a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court, which, in turn, had taken note of conflicting views expressed by Division Benches of this Court. When the law is finally settled by the Supreme Court in a contentious issue such as the one presented in the instant case, the said law has necessarily to be applied by the assessing authorities under the IT Act who are bound by it.

  It cannot be the stand of the Department that an assessee, who is aggrieved by an assessment order passed ignoring the binding judgment of the Supreme Court, has nevertheless an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the first appellate authority under the statute. An erroneous assessment occasioned by ignoring a binding judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be trivialized as an order against which an appellate remedy lies that would provide justice to an assessee.

  We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and also quash Ext. P11 assessment order in relation to the writ petitioner/assessee, and direct the 1st respondent assessing authority to re-do the assessment of the appellant society for the asst. yr. 2018-19 under the IT Act afresh, after issuing notice to the appellant assessee and after hearing the assessee in the matter. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that all contentions on merits are left open to the assessee to canvass before the assessing authority at the time of hearing. The assessing authority shall endeavour to complete the assessment as directed taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1083 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of service tax - royalty/seigniorage charges since royalty on mining leases - definition of supply as per entry No.17 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with Entry No.5 of Notification No.13/2017-Central Tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- Although the matter relates to challenge to a show-cause notice and in very rare cases this Court would interfere at the initial stage, we are of the opinion as the very incidence of tax on royalty/seigniorage charges is in question, we are inclined to entertain the writ petition.

  Post on 09.08.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1082 - ITAT PUNE
  

  Disallowance of expenditure incurred on failed IPO (failed Public issue) - Allowable revenue expenditure or not? - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nimbus Communication Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 696 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court following its earlier decision in the case of M/s. Essar Oil Limited [2008 (10) TMI 649 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] confirmed the decision of the Tribunal allowing the aborted IPO expenditure as revenue expenditure u/s 37. Similarly, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd.[2018 (6) TMI 1236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that the expenditure incurred for setting up of new project viz. Chemical Beneficiation Plant which is abandoned following State Government Order is allowable as revenue expenditure.

  Disallowance u/s 14A - contention of the appellant that no interest bearing funds were utilized for the purpose of making any investment which yielded the exempt income - HELD THAT:- We direct the Assessing Officer not to make any addition on account of interest expenditure under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’).

  As regards to indirect expenses incurred for earning exempt income, the submission the assessee that amount of disallowance should be restricted lower of the exempt income and 0.5% of average value of investment, which yielded the exempt income / merits acceptance. It is very well settled position of law that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income.

  While computing the amount of disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the average value of investments which yielded the exempt income alone to be considered for the purpose of arriving at average value of investment - Therefore, this ground of appeal is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to calculate the amount of disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) on the above lines indicated above. Thus, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1081 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  TDS u/s 195 - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on commission payments made to non residents agents - whether said services are not in the nature of technical services and does not come under purview of section 9(2) of the Act ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. PUMA SPORTS INDIA P., LTD., [2021 (4) TMI 93 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case the Associated Enterprises has rendered services out of India in the form of placing orders with the manufacturers who are already outside India. The commission was paid to Associate Enterprises out of India. No taxing event has taken place within the territories of India and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1080 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  Constitution of CoC - Committee of Creditors has not been constituted as yet, hence, it was ordered that the constitution of CoC to be put on hold till next date of hearing - HELD THAT:- Let the matter be fixed for consideration of impleadment application and for hearing on 3rd August, 2021.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1079 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
  

  Prayer for deciding application on time - HELD THAT:- It is apprised that 20th July, 2021 has already been fixed for hearing before the Adjudicating Authority - Considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties. We request the Adjudicating Authority to decide aforesaid applications on priority basis preferably on 20th July, 2021.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1078 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - commercial transaction governed by contract between the parties regarding purchase of goods - Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. - Sections 406 and 420 of IPC - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there is a contract existing between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. When the petitioners had requested for 100 tonnes of old iron from the defacto complainant, the parties had entered into a contract and the said contract was duly signed by both the parties. While that being the case, the defacto complainant cannot now take a turn and seek for a direction under the Criminal Procedure Code, that too when the present case is purely civil in nature, which involves a commercial transaction between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and no criminal offence has been made out.

  It is pertinent to point out that the dispute between the parties, at the most, can be said to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into the criminal dispute. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Merely because the petitioners have not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or even assuming not paid the amount in lieu of one month Notice, this by itself cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

  In the present case on hand, looking at the allegations in the charge sheet, on the face of it, this Court finds no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 406 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the petitioners in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the petitioners did not make payment to the defacto complainant and that the petitioners utilized the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the money / property - The mere fact that the petitioners did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust. Even if all the allegations in the charge sheet taken at the face value are true, this Court is of the view that basic essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation and cheating are missing. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies. Since no case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest intention of inducement is made out and the essential ingredients of Sections 406/420 IPC are missing, the prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 406/420 IPC, is liable to be quashed.

  The present Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1077 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  

  Seeking approval of the Resolution Plan - Section 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39 (4) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 - HELD THAT:- The proposed Resolution Plan meets the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations. The Resolution Plan is not found in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code and is in accordance with Law. Hence the same deserves approval with following observation and direction to the CoC to make payments as per liquidation value to all the dissenting Financial Creditors in cash upfront before any payment is made to assenting Financial Creditors as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. matter. [2021 (3) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT].

  It is to be ensured to make payment of statutory dues of its employees, ex-employees viz Gratuity, Provident Fund etc in full and on priority - application approved.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1076 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
  

  Rejection of the Resolution Plan by the Resolution Professional - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the MSME Certificate attached with the typed set filed by the Respondent would go on to show that the said Certificate was only obtained on 19.12.2020. Thus, it can be seen that the Applicant is trying to play a fraud upon this Tribunal, in order to gain backdoor entry to the assets of the Corporate Debtor in the guise of projecting themselves as MSME. Further, section 240A of the IBC, 2016 exempts applicability of only section 29A(c) and 29A(h) in terms of eligibility to be a resolution applicant as a medium level enterprise under MSME Development Act, 2006. In the present case, the Applicant suffers disqualification under Section 29A(e) and unfortunately, such a protection is not being granted to the Applicant/Corporate Debtor, under Section 240A of IBC, 2016 who claims themselves to be an MSME. In any case, the Applicant suffers disqualification under Section 29A(e) of IBC, 2016.

  The Applicant, being the Promoter/suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor is trying to stall the process of CIRP on the guise of projecting themselves as MSME and thereby trying to gain a backdoor entry to the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

  This Adjudicating Authority is of the considered view that the Respondent was right in rejecting the Application of the Applicant for the Resolution Plan - Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1075 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Adjustments qua refunds - grant extension for filing the court-fee and notarised affidavits along with the present petition - HELD THAT:- PCIT will deliberate and deal with the petitioner's communications, dated 14.01.2021, 26.02.2021 and 10.03.2021. The PCIT will pass a speaking order, after according a hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner.

  List the matter on 03.08.2021.

  In the meanwhile, the respondents/revenue will maintain status quo with regard to the future adjustments qua refunds, if any, available to the petitioner, till the next date of hearing. It is made clear that, notwithstanding this direction, the plea made in the aforementioned communications addressed to the PCIT, concerning adjustment of future refunds, if any, being made available to the petitioner, will be dealt with by the PCIT.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1074 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
  

  Seeking withdrawal of CIRP of Corporate Debtor - Seeking to constitute a revised CoC consisting of only Operational Creditors - original Financial Creditors who constituted the CoC had given letters of withdrawal - Section 12A of IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is noted that pursuant to the orders passed by this Tribunal, two CoC meetings were convened by the RP and in none of the meeting the RP has moved an agenda for fixing his fee / remuneration, however after CoC passing a Resolution for withdrawal of the Application under Section 12A of IBC, 2016 the RP seeks for fixing his fees. However, it is seen from FORM FA presented before this Tribunal that Bank Guarantee in a sum of ₹ 10 lakh, has been provided towards fees and costs of the Resolution Professional by the Operational Creditor. However, an objection is taken in this regard in relation to the person who had taken the Bank Guarantee (BG) not to be the party concerned, but by a third party company. Learned Senior Counsel for the Board of Directors whose powers stand suspended gives an undertaking on behalf of them that the BG will not be returned unhonoured under any circumstances and that the amount for which BG has been given will be duly met.

  Taking into consideration the said submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/RP/Respondents as well as the averments contained in the Application and also based on the unanimous Resolution passed by the CoC on 25.05.2021 under Section 12A of IBC, 2016 for withdrawal of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, this instant Application stands allowed and in the circumstances, petition stands withdrawn. Consequently, the CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor also stands withdrawn.

  Application closed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 1073 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal by NCLAT - Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable period of 15 days after the expiry of the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed therein.

  However, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant seeks liberty to move the National Company Law Tribunal by invoking Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. The appellant shall have such liberty, if permissible in law.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

123456789........ 59