Liability of arrears of commercial tax dues - company purchased the property of another company under liquidation through auction - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, the respondent No.1 is not a party to the contract nor any terms and conditions are incorporated by the respondent No.2 when respondent No.1 purchased the property in auction. The auction / purchaser cannot be held liable to clear the arrears of commercial tax of previous onwers in absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard.
Reliance to be placed in the decision of Mahaveer Enterprises vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported as [2008 (8) TMI 1006 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT], where it was held that the Commercial Tax Department has absolutely no justification or jurisdiction to order the attachment and sealing of the property of the petitioner, which had been purchased by it from M. P.F.C.
Both the writ appeals were dismissed on the ground that the property purchased by the respondent No.1 – Company from the Corporation cannot be put to auction by the Commercial Tax Department of the State Government for recovery of the arrears of commercial tax from the erstwhile owners - Appeal dismissed.
Validity of proceedings u/s. 92CA(3) after expiry of limitation period - period of limitation - Time limit for completion of assessments - Whether the procedure order is passed beyond the limitation of time? - irregularity in the procedure - HELD THAT:- Honda Trading Corporation [2015 (9) TMI 846 - ITAT DELHI] wherein, it has been held that the time limit specified u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory and not directory and therefore the TPO is bound by the time limit for passing of the order u/s 92CA (3) of the act. Accordingly, in that case time limit as per section 153(1) of the Act was up to 7.06.2014 and TPO passed his order on 31.05.2014 instead of on or before 08.04.2014, hence order passed by the TPO in that case was held to be time barred. The coordinate bench has further held that in such circumstances the final assessment order would be same but the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment arising from the determination of the ALP of the international transaction by the TPO emanating from his time barred order is unsustainable and therefore the coordinate bench directed for deletion of addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment made in the final assessment order.
Thus the order of the ld. TPO passed on 31.12.2014 is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. Therefore, consequently, the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment does not survive. In view of this ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Validity of reassessment u/s 147 - assessee has not offered the capital gains in the year of entering of the JDA - transfer of land as per the provisions of section 2(47)(v) as the possession of the said property has been taken by the developer in part performance of contract referred in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the assessee had entered into a JDA dt.12.5.2004 and had not offered any income being capital gain arising from the said JDA, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT AND JCIT VERSUS TK. DAYALU [2012 (6) TMI 405 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that when the possession was handed over to the developer at the time of entering into JDA, it constitutes transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and consequently the capital gains is to be taxed in the year in which the JDA was entered into.
When the assessee did not offer the income arising from transfer of land in question under JDA and there was no original assessment then the reopening based on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as facts came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had entered into JDA is valid and justified.
Addition on account of capital gains - HELD THAT:- We find that as per the JDA dt.12.5.2004 the assessee has handed over possession to the developer for construction of the residential project though the said JDA and handing over of the possession does not constitute an outright and absolute sale however it would certainly constitute the transfer of the immovable property as per the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act as held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dr. T.K. Dayalu [2012 (6) TMI 405 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].
We do not find any error or illegality so far as the JDA along with handing over of possession constitute transfer of land in question in terms of section 2(47)(v) .
The issue of computation of capital gains is set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer with a direction to compute the capital gains by taking consideration for transfer of the land as on the date of JDA as market value of the asset to be received by the assessee.
Addition of notional interest on interest free advances to DCM Employees Trust - assessee had claimed deduction for the liabilities on account of flyover cost and interest payable to MCD on accrual basis in AY 2004-05 - claim of the assessee company was disallowed by the AO by observing that the deduction would be allowable on payment basis - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case for AY 2004-05 in the later years, the assessee has accepted the stand of the Revenue and has also been following the same practice. For the relevant assessment year, it is noticed that the AO has changed his stand just because the assessee has transferred the complete rights in the project as a whole of M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. When a particular method of computation of income of the assessee has been followed and has been accepted and is also followed by the Revenue and the assessee, just because the total rights in the project has been transferred, such method cannot be changed as by the change of the method, the expenses otherwise allowable to the assessee, is now being denied which is not a permissible act. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the deduction of the said expenses is on right footing and do not call for any interference.
Expenditure in respect of approvals and permissions, it is seen that the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 - CIT(A) has rightly looked into the matter and has after considering the expenses which have been incurred subsequent to the claim, has granted the proportionate relief to the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the proportionate expenses as allowed to the assessee, is on a scientific and an acceptable principle after considering the expenses claimed and the possible future liability and consequently no interference is called for.
Notional disallowance made by the AO in respect of loan given to DCM Employees Welfare Trust - Similar disallowance had been made by the AO in earlier years and was subsequently deleted by CIT (A) and ITAT. Accordingly, this ground is covered in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee company had received dividend income during the year which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act and it had suo moto made a disallowance - HELD THAT:- AO has not examined the calculation as submitted by the assessee company in this regard and has also not recorded any satisfaction to the effect that the disallowance offered was not correct.
We find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that the AO has neither recorded his satisfaction nor giving any reason as to how the claim of expenditure in relation to tax free income has not been correctly made by the assessee as envisaged u/s 14A and the AO has proceeded to mechanically invoke Rule 8D. We also find that the AO has not established any nexus between the investment made and the expenditure incurred under interest expenditure and administrative expenses before disregarding the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee vis-à-vis the dividend income .
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment P. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Holcim India P. Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that in absence of any exempt income, there can be no disallowance u/s 14A. We also find that the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10, on identical set of facts, had restricted the disallowance to the extent of dividend income received during the year. Respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to ₹ 70,088/- .Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Seeking to direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Investigation Team of the Income Tax Department to take action on the complaints sent by him as against the companies - HELD THAT:- It appears that the writ petitioner has virtually declared a war on the contesting private respondent, in different forums. But, unfortunately, for the contesting respondents, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) has come up with the counter affidavit, indicating that some investigation is in progress. According to Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel, this investigation need not necessarily be at the instance of the writ petitioner.
Even an enemy, could provide the trigger point for an investigation. If a mandamus is sought from a Court, the Court would certainly reject a prayer of this nature made by a person, who camouflages a private cause under the garb of a public cause - But once the official respondents have taken cognizance and initiated some action, the same cannot be prevented even if we condemn the action of the writ petitioners. Therefore, we do not wish to get into the details of the litigation as between the petitioner and the contesting respondents.
In view of the statement made on oath by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), no orders are necessary in these writ petitions - Petition disposed off.
Requirement of pre-deposit - whether provision under Section 21 of RDDBI Act relating to pre-deposit for entertaining an appeal is applicable to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on an interim application filed under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1993? - existence of proper reasoning or not - HELD THAT:- A simple, literal construction is required to be applied to the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBI Act. The reference to amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 occurring in Section 21 is of significance. It is relevant and important because in the facts of the present case, the petitioners have raised issue that there was no determination done as per Section 19 of the RDDBI Act.
Rule 12(5) cannot be separated in two parts. The said Rule clearly stipulates that on failure of the defendant to pay the amount to the extent of the admission within a period of one month from the date of order, a certificate in accordance with Section 19 of the RDDBI Act would be issued. The words “may issue a certificate” occurring in Rule 12 (5), according to the learned counsel, would mean that only in certain contingencies, the issuance of certificate could get delayed /postponed and a party to the proceeding may independently challenge issuance of certificate itself - A recovery certificate would amount to formal expression of the adjudication. The Act and the Rules do not contemplate separate proceedings to be initiated, much less, adjudicated for getting the recovery certificate issued.
The process of adjudicating is required to be gone into, may be to limited extent or on an interim application, to find out the quantum of money to be due. Ordinarily, the final adjudication would take place upon conclusion of proceeding filed under Section 19 of the RDDBI Act. But, there could be interim adjudication of part of the claim, while the remaining adjudication of the balance of the claim is determined in a final judgment or order - It would not be permissible to read provisions of Rule 12(5) in a way to defeat the object of Sections 19 and 21 of the RDDBI Act. The Rules would not override the statutory provisions. It is elementary that the rules prescribed by a subordinate legislation cannot be in excess or in derogation of the statute under which it is made.
The order passed by the DRT under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1993 amounts to an interim determination of the amount due. In the facts, the petitioners-borrowers/guarantors would be liable to pay an amount towards pre-deposit under the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBI Act - if a person files an appeal to DRAT against an order passed by DRT under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1993, the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBI Act gets attracted, irrespective of as to whether a recovery certificate was issued or not.
Refund claim - seizure of currency and watches - HELD THAT:- The appellant shall be entitled to refund of 50% of the seized amount and the watches seized by the respondent within four weeks hence, subject to an undertaking filed before the Registry of this Court within ten days that if the appeal fails, the appellant shall make good the dues along with interest.
Dishonor of Cheque - seeking leave to appeal - it was alleged that cheque was as security cheque - discharge of the existing legal liability, on the account that the cheque being of higher amount - HELD THAT:- On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, it was concluded that cheque amount was much more than the actual amount due, therefore, cheque was not in discharge of a legal liability. Trial court has meticulously scrutinized evidence adduced by the parties and on the basis thereof has held that, as per the loan agreement Ex. CW1/B, petitioner had advanced ₹ 42,600/-. As agreed the interest of ₹ 14,400/- was also payable. Thus, total amount payable in instalments was ₹ 57,000/-. CW1 admitted in his cross-examination that respondent no. 2 had already paid about ₹ 40,000/- to petitioner. Statement of account Ex. CW1/1 indicated that as on 16th February, 2009 ₹ 17,100/- was outstanding balance. Over and above this, overdue charges of ₹ 12,451.48 were added. Even the aggregate of this amount comes to ₹ 29,551.48; whereas cheque amount was much more than this. Thus, the cheque being of higher amount could not be taken towards discharge of the existing legal liability.
Reliance has been placed on the judgments, that is, ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS VINAY MITTAL [2010 (1) TMI 1288 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to conclude that if cheque amount is much more than liability, section 138 of the Act is not attracted.
The petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of the trial court - petition dismissed.
Seeking direction for opening of technical and financial bid of the respondent - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the pre-bid meeting held on 24.03.2014, ten tenderers have participated. After conclusion of the pre-bid meeting on 24.03.2014, as a result of stringent conditions prescribed in clause 4.5(A)(a) and 4.5(A)(c), only three tenderers could participate in the bidding process and submit their bids. Upon scrutiny two were found non-responsive. In our considered view, High Court erred in presuming that there was adequate competition. In order to make the tender more competitive, tender committee in its collective wisdom has taken the decision to cancel and re-invite tenders in the light of SBD norms - While exercising judicial review in the matter of government contracts, the primary concern of the court is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process or whether it is vitiated by mala fide, unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the government. In the case in hand, the respondent has neither pleaded nor established mala fide exercise of power by the appellant. While so, the decision of tender committee ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court. In our considered view, the High Court erred in sitting in appeal over the decision of the appellant to cancel the tender and float a fresh tender. Equally, the High Court was not right in going into the financial implication of a fresh tender.
When the SLP came up for hearing, by an order dated 10.08.2015, while granting interim stay on the operation of the impugned judgment, this Court directed that the appellants shall be free to invite fresh tenders and process the same, but no allotment shall be made without permission of this Court - The learned Attorney General submitted that the entire sub-mergence area of the proposed Icha Dam is in the scheduled area and the remaining land for Icha Dam can be acquired only with the prior consent of the Gram Sabha of the affected villages. It is further stated that the issue was discussed in the meeting of Tribal Advisory Council held on 27.09.2014 and that Tribal Advisory Council and the sub-committee opined that the construction of Icha-Kharkai Dam may be cancelled. Learned Attorney General therefore submitted that there are some issues which need to be resolved before floating a fresh tender of Icha dam. The impugned judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside.
Calling of records on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate E.O.- 1, Allikulam Moore Market, Chennai - resignation of Directorship in Eduexel Infotainment Limited - HELD THAT:- The submission cannot be countenanced, because the provisions under Section 168 of the Companies Act clearly state that a Director shall also forward a copy of his resignation along with detailed reasons for the resignation to the Registrar within thirty days of resignation in such manner as may be prescribed, which the petitioner has not done. But, the petitioner has sent his resignation to the ROC only on 13.04.2015, after getting the notice dated 10.04.2015, which was issued by the ROC. The Proviso under Section 168 of the Companies Act clearly states that even if a person has resigned from the Directorship, he will be liable for the offences committed during his tenure.
This Court is not able to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
Deduction u/s.80HHC - Non taxability of the gross interest on the FDR - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case where there is a direct nexus between the borrowings of an assessee utilized for business purpose, and the funds kept as FDRs by way of security, margin money etc., then interest, if any received on such FDRs will have to be netted off while considering and calculating deduction u/s.80HHC. In the instant appellant’s case, it is seen that all the FDRs are acquired from the funds taken from the O.D. account with IOB and thus, on facts also there is a direct nexus. This point, therefore, goes in favour of the appellant. The appellant has furnished a certificate from the bank, certifying that the FDRs were all acquired by debiting the O.D. account. It is also seen that the O.D. balances, both at the beginning and at the end of the year, far exceed to aggregate of the FDRs - Decided against revenue.
Treating the sale tax refund as allowable u/s.80HHC - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has decided the said issue on the basis of decision in case of Alfa Level Ltd. [2003 (9) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as held that the sales tax refund is to be assessed as part of business profit under the head profit and gains of business and the same could not be excluded while calculating deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act. The appellant is a 100% exporter therefore the sales tax refund was considered as a part of profit on business for computing deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act. No distinguishable facts came into notice before us to which it can be assume that the CIT(A) has arrived at wrong conclusion.
Whether the appellant is entitled to deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act in view of the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has no positive income from the export of 90% of incentives and other income, are reduced from profit of the business? - HELD THAT:- Since the profits derived from the export activity is a positive figure, the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC. The A.O. is directed to re-compute and grant deduction u/s.80HHC in accordance with law. Not distinguishable facts were placed on record by the revenue to which it can be assumed that the finding given by the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts.CIT(A) has passed the order on the basis of order passed by the ITAT, Mumbai ‘H’ Special Bench in the case of M/s. Surendra Engineering Corpn. [2002 (12) TMI 199 - ITAT BOMBAY-H] Finding no contrary view taken by any other court of law, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the assessee.
Addition holding that the purchases are fully explained in the books of account whereas the supplier were not traceable - as per CIT-A net result would be that 80% of the addition would have to be allowed as a deduction u/s.80HHC leaving only the balance 20% - HELD THAT:- These issues have been remanded by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer for the verification of the allowable deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act while giving effect to the order of CIT(A). The representative of the department has raised the question of verification while in this regard the CIT(A) has already directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee in view of the directions as desired by the CIT(A) while deciding this issue. No justifiable facts have been placed on record to take the contrary view of the said finding. Moreover these issues are based upon the facts of the case which can be verified by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. On appraisal of the above said order we find no reasons to interfere with in the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. These issues are decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - tax was calculated on the deemed income under section 115JB - As the assessee has tax liability under section 115JB, however, it has offered tax under normal provisions of the Act and, therefore, had furnished inaccurate particulars to evade tax - CIT- A deleted the penalty levy - HELD THAT:- As considering the decision in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. at the SLP against the decision was rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court [2012 (5) TMI 150 - SC ORDER] and the facts available on record there is no dispute to the fact that the assessment as per normal procedure was not acted upon and only the deemed income assessed under section 115JB became the basis of assessment as it was higher of the two. In the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. it was held that when the tax was calculated on the deemed income under section 115JB. the Revenue is not to impose penalty.
Since the tax has been paid by the assessee under section 115JB, therefore, not penalty could be levied in respect of additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. Respectfully following the decision M/S. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD. [2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Addition on account of the commission paid on the bank guarantee issued by the VTB bank - bank guarantee commission to be treated as a payment of interest in terms u/s 2(28A) or addition 40(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- As pointed out by the CIT (A), there was no warrant for treating the bank guarantee commission as a payment of interest in terms of Section 2(28A) of the Act. The bank guarantee commission paid to the foreign bank could not have been disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the above basis. The Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the above determination by the CIT(A) which has been affirmed by the ITAT.
Method of accounting - Substantial question of law OR fact - HELD THAT:- Revenue does not dispute that the method of accounting has been consistently followed by the Assessee and has been accepted by the Revenue for the AYs previous to and subsequent to the AYs in question. Consequently, this Court does not see any reason to frame any question on this issue as well.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non independent application of mind - receiving information from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the bogus accommodation entries initiated reopening of assessment - whether AO can initiate proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of certain communication received from his superior revenue authorities, namely, Addl. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-1, New Delhi? - HELD THAT:- As decided in CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL[1971 (1) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] it was not satisfied that the ITO had any material before him which could satisfy the requirements under Section 147 and therefore could not have issued notice under Section 148.
Similar issue has cropped up before the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘H’ in M/s. USG Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 518 - ITAT DELHI] wherein addition was made by the AO on the basis of similar intimation sent by ACIT, Central Circle 19, New Delhi on the basis of survey operation conducted in S.K. Gupta Group cases on 20.11.2007 and the coordinate Bench came to the conclusion that the AO has not applied his mind on the information received form ACIT as required u/s 147 of the Act and as such, assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Survey u/s 133A - Addition based on loose papers found - non disclosure of donation receipt - HELD THAT:- Statement of the individual case has to be seen and it has to be used independently. In the statement recorded some of the students admitted that they have paid donation but this statement of the third party cannot be used against the assessee who has denied to have made any payment.
There are 1000s of reasons for appearing her name in the code but it cannot be used against the assessee unless proper opportunity of making cross examination is given to the assessee after giving a copy of statement to the assessee and thereafter this statement can be used, but I am of the view that the statement recorded of the some persons is in their individual capacity but cannot be used against the assessee. Therefore, this will not serve the purpose for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Moreover, the assessee’s books of accounts are subject to audit. The assessee also denied to have made any payment then unless some incriminating material is found from the medical college, no addition can be made - Decided in favour of assessee.
The High Court of Delhi received a file from a Joint Registrar who was on leave. The case is scheduled for consideration on the issue of jurisdiction on 05th August, 2016.
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - onus to prove - HELD THAT:- No doubt the primary onus was on the assessee to satisfy the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act as the amount stood credited in its books but it was also incumbent on the revenue to have made enquiries, verification and examination of the loan creditors wherein complete details of the loan creditors were furnished by the assessee instead of merely relying on statement of Shri Surendra Mansukhlal Khandar incriminating assessee, which incriminating statement of Shri Surendra Mansukhlal Khandar had not stood the test of cross examination by the assessee - this matter needs to be set aside and restored to the file of the A.O. and if the A.O. found on verification that the amounts of loan borrowed by the assessee have been repaid by the assessee to the said loan creditors by account payee cheques through banking channel, the additions will stand deleted.
Additions on account of interest on these loans - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO has made additions based on notional interest being paid/payable by the assessee on these loans, we did not find any basis/justification for the same as per the facts emanating from the records. This issue is also set-aside to the file of the AO to be decided based on merits after bringing on record cogent material/basis for the said interest to be brought to tax as income of the assessee.
Failure on the part of Geodesic to redeem an amount on maturity date of Zero Coupon Bonds - siphoning of funds - amount misappropriated and / or siphoned off by the Respondent Company through its Directors - false statement had been made to this Court that the amount in excess of ₹ 1,000 Crores was available as deposited in the accounts of overseas subsidiaries - HELD THAT:- Today, this Court in Chamber, initially in the presence of all Advocates explained the importance of the role of these responsible high ranking officers, in a matter of this magnitude, which, borrowing the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, needs to be viewed seriously, and is considered as a grave offence, affecting the economy of the country as a whole, thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country. This Court also pointed out to the Officers (of the ED & EOW) that though the Court appreciates the efforts made by the Agencies headed by them in tracing the funds, the creditors of the Company have till date been unable to even see a ray of hope as far as receiving the amounts which Geodesic (now under provisional liquidation), had promised to return to them. The Officers present before this Court informed the Court that they were extending their best efforts towards achieving this end, and as set out in their Confidential Reports were making all efforts to trace the funds which have been siphoned off / misappropriated by the Directors of the Company.
The Officers once again assured the Court that they would do their best in the matter and would endeavor to bring back into the coffers of the Official Liquidator appointed by this Court as the Provisional Liquidator of Geodesic, the huge sums of money belonging to the Company and at present lying abroad. They submitted that they would submit their further report within a period of two weeks from today, to this Court.
Since the present Order was required to be dictated and signed, the papers in the matter were retained in the Chamber - Stand over to 11th August, 2016.
Dispensation of procedure prescribed under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 - Scheme for Reduction of Share Capital - HELD THAT:- No objector has come forward to oppose the proposed reduction - Filing and issue drawn up order is dispensed with.
Petitioner to publish notices in the same newspapers i.e. Free Press Journal in English language and Navshakti, in Marathi language both having circulation in Mumbai about registration of Order and minutes of reduction by the concerned Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra - Publication in Maharashtra Government Gazette is dispensed with.
Reduction of share capital - Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- In view of the averment made in Paragraph 12 to 15 of the Affidavit in support of Summons for Direction, inter-alia stating that there are no Secured Creditors and that the proposed reduction of equity share capital would not in any way adversely affect the interests of any of the Applicant Company’s creditors or the ordinary operations of the Applicant Company or the ability of the Applicant Company to honour its debts in the ordinary course of business , and no compromise or arrangement is called for with any of the creditors of the Applicant Company as there is no reduction in the amount payable to any of the creditors of the Applicant Company.
The procedure prescribed under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is dispensed with.
9911796707
Advanced Search 
