|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1469 Records
-
2021 (7) TMI 1393
Classification of supply - rate of tax - activity of transportation of coal from the mine to the railway siding at Pakur, till the time the railway siding is made operational at the mine - an independent activity or part of supply of mining service - exemption available to the applicant as 'transportation of goods by a person other than GTA' - liability to pay GST under RCM on the transportation services received from the transporters, as they are not issuing consignment note.
HELD THAT:- The price charged by the supplier for both the services are separately mentioned in the contract held in this regard. The bills/invoices are also separately raised in this regard. Moreover, none of the services can be considered as predominant over the other service. Both the services are important for the service recipient and accordingly invited tender and held contract for availing both the services. These services in any way cannot be considered as naturally bundled services as order of both the services can be awarded to separate service providers. Also they are not supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, one of which is a principal supply nor are these services supplied made in conjunction with each other for a single price.
In this case it can be treated that the applicant has made an arrangement in place of consignment note by issuing different forms in their own style which they handover to the transporters and after delivery of the goods, weighment challans have been issued at railway siding which proves that goods have been delivered safely. After verification of the quantity, the payment is released to the transporters in due course as per the clauses of agreement - The purpose of issuing consignment note indicates that the lien on the goods has been transferred to the transporter and the transporter becomes responsible for the goods till its safe delivery to the consignee. In the present case also collective reading of Work Order awarded to the transporter with the requisite forms required to be filled/signed, makes it amply clear that the transporter becomes responsible for the goods till its safe delivery to the destination.
As per the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act, the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify categories of supply of goods or services or both, the tax on which shall be paid on reverse charge basis by the recipient of such goods or services or both and all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such recipient as if he is the person liable for paying the tax in relation to the supply of such goods or services or both - the services rendered by the 'Goods Transport Agency' in short GTA falls under 'Reverse Charge Mechanism' (in short RCM) and the applicant is liable to pay GST on the same under RCM after appropriate valuation of the service.
GST applicable in this case has been covered under Entry 9(iii) of the Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (Heading 9965), as amended, subject to conditions mentioned therein, i.e., a GST Rate of 5% will be applicable provided that credit of input tax credit charged on goods and services used in supplying the services has not been taken. However, Entry No. 9(iii) of the said Notification has been substituted vide Notification No. 20/2017-CT (Rate) dated 22.08.2017 for including an alternative GST Rate of 12%, provided that the transporters opted to pay so.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1392
Doctrine/principle of pristine Hindu law - privity of contract between the respondents and the petitioner or not - whether the basic principles of the laws relating to partnerships and contracts will not apply when one of the contracting parties is the State? - HELD THAT:- The undisclosed principal in the present case is the partnership firm represented by the petitioner. In the light of the agreement executed between the respondents and Smt. P. Syamala, the respondents cannot contend that she had executed the document with any intention to bind the firm or in her capacity as a partner of the firm. This is all the more evident from the reading of Ext.R4(a) which had preceded the agreement. Even though in Ext.R4(a) the legal heirs of Late Sathyapalan had expressed the willingness of the firm to carry out the work, the respondents chose to execute the agreement with Smt. P. Syamala in her individual capacity. As such, neither Smt. P. Syamala nor the respondents have intended the agreement to bind the firm. It follows therefore that no liability alleged to have been incurred as a result of Ext.P6 agreement can be fastened on the petitioner.
Whether the partnership assets can be made liable for a debt allegedly owed by a partner? - HELD THAT:- There can be no doubt that if a partner owes any money, the creditor will be entitled to proceed against the profits that may be earned by the debtor, in his capacity as a partner of a firm or against the debtors' interest in the partnership firm. In the case on hand, Smt. P. Syamala had retired from the partnership as can be seen from Ext.P4 deed dated 31.03.2013, whereby the partnership was reconstituted. There is nothing in the pleadings of the parties to show that the retiring partner had any rights subsisting in the partnership, on the date of issuance of Ext.P3 letter by the Assistant Executing Engineer, proposing to withhold the amounts due to the firm, towards the risk and cost liability of Smt. P. Syamala. Ext.P3 proceeds on the basis that Smt. P. Syamala is a partner of the firm, which does not appear to be correct on the basis of Ext.P4 deed - Since the question whether Smt. P. Syamala has any "cost and risk" liability to the respondents is admittedly pending consideration of the competent civil court, it is not necessary in these proceedings to go into the question as to the modes of recovery that can be resorted to by the respondents, if they are able to succeed in the civil court.
The decision contained in Ext.P3 to withhold the payment due to the petitioner's firm is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to release the credit received in favour of the petitioner's firm for payment of CC8 and final bill amounting to Rs. 30,01,268/- immediately, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment - the writ petition is allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1391
Allowability of interest on refund u/s 244A - delay attributable to the assessee - period for which interest is to be allowed - refund in relation to interest reimbursement under TUFS ( Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme) - contention of the assessee is there is no delay attributable to the assessee at all and that the only delay recognized by section 244A(2) of the Act relates to delay in proceedings attributable to the assessee - HELD THAT:- In the case of Chetan N. Shah vs. M. K. Moghe Commissioner of Income Tax [2014 (9) TMI 1177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble Bombay high court held that there is no provision for rejecting the claim of interest on account of a mistake by the assessee. That such a proposition would render the section otiose since excess taxes paid originate on account of some mistake either on fact or law on the part of the assessee. That it is only delay in disposal of proceedings resulting in refund attributable to the assessee which are not to be compensated with interest.
The delayed claim of the assessee therefore cannot be said to tantamount to delay in proceedings resulting in refund attributable to the assessee.
In the case of HHA Tank Terminal( P) ( ltd) [2019 (2) TMI 1515 - KERALA HIGH COURT] the assessee had already been granted refund on processing of its return u/ s 143 ( 1 ) of the Act and subsequently it had filed a revised return claiming further refund. In this backdrop of facts the Hon’ble court held that the later refund could only relate back to the filing of revised return.
We have no hesitation in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest on the refund generated for the entire period of delay as envisaged under the provisions of section 244 A (1) (b) of the Act that there was no delay attributable to the assessee in the proceedings resulting in refund and, therefore, the provisions of section 244 A( 2 ) of the Act were not attracted in the present case. The order of the Ld. CIT( A) holding so is held to be not in accordance with law.
Argument of the assessee that the Ld. CIT( A) had no power to restore the matter to the AO, we do not find any merit in the same since the Ld. CIT( A) has only given a direction to the AO to refer the matter to the Ld. Pr. CIT, which surely does not tantamount to restoring the issue to the AO. This argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is therefore dismissed.
Contention of the Ld. DR that since the Ld. CI T( A) had not adjudicated the issue, having directed the AO to refer the matter to the Ld. Pr. CIT, no appeal lay against this order, we do not find any merit in the same. The limited scope of the power with the Ld. Pr. CIT, as per sub section (2) of section 244 A, is determination of period of delay attributable to the assessee. He has no power to decide the entitlement of grant of refund. The direction of the Ld. CIT( A) to the AO to make a reference is only to this limited extent, which arises and could have arisen only while holding the assessee not entitled to grant of interest for the entire period of delay. I t is this order of the Ld. CIT( A) which has been challenged before us. The argument of the Ld. DR therefore that the order of the Ld. CIT( A) could not have been challenged is clearly devoid of any merits and is thus dismissed.
Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1390
Non deposit of TDS - Employer had deducted TDS from salary but the same has not been deposited in the Government account - HELD THAT:- As per the learned counsel, the TDS has been deducted from the salary of the employee but the same has not been remitted back to the account of Central Government by the employer. Therefore, there is an outstanding demand on the employee (including interest).
We note that assessee has not explained these facts before CIT(A). We make it clear that if TDS has actually been deducted, then assessee (deductee) cannot be called upon to pay tax in terms of provisions of Section 205 of the Income Tax Act.
We direct the assessee to produce before the learned CIT(A) the salary slip, copy of income tax return and the proof that the TDS has been deducted by the employer company but not deposited to the account of the Central Government. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to examine the salary slip, amount deducted as TDS from the salary but not deposited to the Government account and examine the income tax return filed by the assessee and thereafter credit for TDS may be allowed to the assessee in accordance with law. Statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1389
Income from other sources - Interest earned on FD made out of unutilised grants - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2021 (6) TMI 212 - ITAT MUMBAI] Government directive which has been relied upon by him is duly applicable for the current assessment year. As per the said direction the interest on unutilised grant has to be treated a part of the grant itself. Hence, it cannot be subject to tax by the Revenue.
Disallowance revenue grant received by the assessee company - HELD THAT: - We noted that this revenue grant in aid is already covered by Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case [2021 (6) TMI 212 - ITAT MUMBAI] for earlier assessment years. The facts being similar and Revenue now before us could not point out any different in facts or legal position. Nothing contrary was brought to our notice, we uphold the order of CIT(A). This issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Bad debts written off disallowed - HELD THAT:- DR could not controvert the finding of CIT(A) but argued that the assessee has made mere provision for bad debts which is not deductible and for this, she relied on the assessment order. Before us assessee stated one fact that the assessee has obliterated the provision that bad debts in the books of accounts by reducing the same from balance of debtors and had shown the net balance of debtors on the asset side of the balance sheet. He stated that the issue is squarely covered by the decision Vijaya Bank [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] and also Jain insurance corporation of India [2000 (9) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it is observed that ‘writing off’ is a technical term and means raising a debit entry to the P&L Account and the corresponding credit may be given either to debtors or to reserve for bad debts. Further the court has observed that where the assessee has debited P&L account and has credited reserve for bad debts, the same would be sufficient for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act.This issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Employees contribution to provident fund beyond due date of respective statute - HELD THAT:- As decided in SALZGITTER HYDRAULICS PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (6) TMI 1059 - ITAT HYDERABAD]provident fund contribution received from employees deposited by assessee before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act but after the due date prescribed in the relevant statute of provident Fund Act is to be allowed despite the fact that legislation has not only incorporated necessary amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act by inserting explanation 2 as well as explanation 5 to section 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, wherein it is clarified that the provisions of section shall not apply and shall be deemed to have been applied to a sum received by assessee from any of his employees covered by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospective and not retrospective.
We are of the view that the legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions, are prospective in application with effect from 01.04.2021. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of interest on unutilized grant in aid - HELD THAT:- As quantum addition is deleted, hence, the penalty will not survive. Therefore, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty and we confirm the same. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1388
Validity of faceless assessment u/s 144B - no show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order was issued - HELD THAT:- As revenue states that the record presently placed before the Court would show that though no show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order was issued, yet several opportunities had been granted by the respondents/revenue to the petitioner, before the said date, to explain its case, this argument of the respondent/revenue is contrary to the statutory scheme, as provided in Section 144B of the Act.
In our opinion, petitioner is correct in submitting that Section 144B of the Act has been violated and the assessment proceeding has been completed in the present case in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The impugned assessment order dated 22nd April, 2021 issued under Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2018-2019 as well as demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act and notice for initiating penalty proceedings issued under Section 270A and 271AAC(I) of the Act are set aside. However, the respondent/revenue is given liberty to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The petitioner is also given liberty to challenge any action of the respondent/revenue in accordance with law, in the event she is aggrieved by the same.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1387
Deduction u/s 80IA - Whether DG Power Generation units 1 and II are entitled to the benefit of Sec. 80IA? - ITAT held that DG Power Generation Units 1 and II constituted an "undertaking" under Sec. 80 IA of the Income tax Act - HELD THAT:- By following the reasoning and conclusion recorded [2019 (3) TMI 1549 - KERALA HIGH COURT] the substantial questions of law raised as question nos.3 and 4 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1386
Export of iron ore fines with Fe content claimed to be less than 62% - benefit of N/N. 62/2007-CUS dated 03.05.2007 - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22 January 2020 in Customs Appeal No. 525 of 2020.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1385
Maintainability of appeal - Declared Service or not - appellant had collected an amount towards compensation/penalty from the buyers of coal on the short lifted/un-lifted quantity of coal - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted.
Issue notice on application for interim relief, returnable on 27-8-2021.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1384
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as no assessment orders are passed under sub clause (4) to section 144C - Assessee case was referred to the TPO u/s 92CA and the TPO inturn, passed an order under section 92CA (3) - HELD THAT:- The order of the TPO is independent and unconnected with the powers conferred on the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the report of the TPO cannot be conclusive for the purpose of its acceptance by the Assessing Officer, who is empowered to go into the contents of such report and make an assessment and if any materials are available, he is at liberty to invoke section 147 of the Act.
Reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer more specifically sub-clause (4) reveals that on receipt of the order under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee under sub-section (4) to section 92C so as to determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer.
The above provision unambiguously clarifies that on receipt of the order passed by the TPO, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee and in confirmity with the Arm's length price. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is empowered to pass draft assessment order with reference to section 144C by taking into consideration the report of the TPO and the other aspects of the matter. In other words, the draft assessment order is not confined actually to the report of the TPO and therefore, there is a scope for reassessment.
As far as determination of Arm's Length Price or consideration of other disallowance, etc. in the draft assessment order are to be considered at the time of adjudication of reopening proceedings and the assessee is at liberty to raise any further ground in respect of those aspects which all are relatable to the merits and with reference to the documents and evidences to be scrutinized.
Mere consideration of Arm's Length Price and other disallowance in the draft assessment order would not preclude the Assessing Authority for reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act as the spirit of the above provisions are providing wider scope to reopen the assessment and the only object is to ensure that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment is brought within the tax net. Thus the object plays a pivotal role in the matter of reopening proceedings and the other procedures contemplated in Chapter XIV of the Act must be read cogently along with the purpose for which such procedures are contemplated and any interpretation overlapping the provisions would defeat the object and thus, this Court is of the opinion that the power of reopening under section 147 of the Act cannot be restricted, even in such circumstances, the TPO submitted a report and a draft assessment order is passed, with reference to certain materials available, and the AO has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax escaped assessment, then he is well within his powers to invoke section 147/148 of the Act. Accordingly, the issues raised are answered in favour of the revenue.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1383
CENVAT Credit - input services or not - services relating to civil work, erection of steel structure, gate fixing, fixing of pipe railing, zeena (stair case), fabrication work and shed fabrication work - whether work were in the nature of works contract services/construction services and is excluded from the purview of definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or not? - non-speaking order - non-application of mind - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant has carried out repair and maintenance work. There is no specific disallowance under Rule 2 (l) with respect to repair and maintenance work. The specific disallowance is only with respect to the new construction undertaken by the assessee.
The appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on repair and maintenance services received for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, in the factory premises - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1382
Estimation of Income - bogus purchases - CIT(A) restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases as against 100% made by the AO - HELD THAT:- As we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order after following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that in case of bogus purchases only profit element embedded in the bogus purchases is to be assessed.
We note that the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal have been taking a consistent view that in case of bogus purchases only a GP rate ranging between 2% to 12.5% whereas the CIT(A) has directed to assess the income @ 12.5% which is quite justified and reasonable and therefore we do not find any reason why the Revenue is aggrieved by this order. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1381
Admission of additional ground of appeal - Failure in issuing section 143(2) notice “within a specified time factor of six months from the end of financial year of furnishing of its return" - HELD THAT:- We find merit in assessee's instant additional ground petition as per All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012 (5) TMI 466 - ITAT MUMBAI] holding in light of hon'ble apex court’s judgment in NTPC Ltd[1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] that this tribunal can very well entertain a pure question of law, in order to determine correct tax liability of an assessee provided all the relevant facts are already on record.
Valid notice u/s 143(2) - assessment on fringe benefits - whether notice issued for the purpose of assessment on fringe benefits? - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in Revenue’s foregoing arguments since the said notices pertained to section 115WE(2) Fringe Benefit Tax “FBT” proceedings (abolished w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11) than assuming jurisdiction for determining the assessee's correct taxable income despite the fact that it had duly filed its return on 29.09.2008. We thus quote Hotel Blue Moon [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and hold that the impugned assessment is not sustainable in law since framed in absence of a valid section 143(2) notice issued within the prescribed time period. The same stands quashed therefore. All other pleadings on merits are rendered academic.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1380
Disallowance of interest due and payable to the Government of India - assessee acquired helicopters from Government Company setup to meet the long term requirements of ONGC to provide the helicopter services in its critical offshore exploration work - Ministry of Finance releases payment in Foreign Exchange on behalf of the assessee and assessee company was required to deposit the rupee equivalent of these Foreign exchange payments so released along with the commission and incidental charges of 1% ad valorem and crown agent charges payable to Ministry of Finance and for any delay in deposit of the amount due, the Ministry of Finance claims interest - assessee did not claim the amount of interest in the profit and loss account as the Ministry of civil Aviation (MCA) had requested the Ministry of Finance for the waiver of interest and shown the same as contingent liability - CIT-A directing that the deduction be allowed not on accrual but on actual payment of the interest.
HELD THAT:- The assessee has taken the loan in the year 1986-87 and interest during that period was also allowed to the assessee as is evident from the assessment order and no disallowance has been made by the revenue. Further, no disallowances were made in A.Y. 1988-89 and A.Y. 1989-90 as is evident from the assessment orders. It is only then in AY 1990-91, in the impugned assessment year the AO has made the disallowance. It is also pertinent to note that subsequently also in A.Y. 1993-94, A.Y. 1994-95, A.Y. 2000-01 and A.Y. 2001-02 similar expenditure claimed by the assessee have been allowed as is evident from the assessment orders.
This issue has been going on with the Ministry of Finance and from the correspondences it can be seen that the interest due to the government is payable and request for the waiver have been rejected repeatedly by the Ministry of Finance. Thus, the liability pertains to the current year only and the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and thus the interest claimed by the assessee has to be allowed. The assessee has claimed similar expenditure in the following preceding assessment years as well as succeeding assessment years which have been allowed by the department and there being no deviation in the facts of the case in the present assessment year and the claim of interest expenditure made by the assessee has to be allowed.
On going through the entire factum of the case, we hereby hold that no disallowance is called for on account of interest payable to the Ministry of Finance.
Disallowance of depreciatiion on Westland Helicopters - depreciation on the "Block of Assets" - claim not allowable since the asset was not used in the current year - HELD THAT:- Once an asset is part of the block of assets and depreciation is granted on that block, it cannot be denied in its subsequent year on the ground that one of the assets is not used by the assessee in some of the years. The concept "user" of assets has to apply upon block as a whole instead of an individual asset.
As in the case of Sony India (P.) Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1442 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation in respect of assets which were part of block of assets even if said assets had not been put to use during relevant assessment year and had been sold prior to end of accounting year. Similarly, in the case of CIT vs Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2010 (12) TMI 947 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as per amended Section 32, deduction is to be allowed in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the WDV thereof as may be prescribed as per Circular No. 469, dated 23.09.1986 thus it is difficult to accept the submission of the Revenue that for allowing the depreciation, user of each and every asset is essential even when a particular asset forms part of 'block of assets'. The Hon'ble High Court held that the Revenue is not put to any loss by adopting such method and allowing depreciation on a particular asset, forming part of the 'block of assets' even when that particular asset is not used in the relevant assessment year.
Thus, keeping in view, the judgments on allowability of depreciation on the "Block of Assets", we hereby hold that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of depreciation claimed u/s 32 with regard to the Westland Helicopters.
Both Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1379
Demand of Service Tax - royalty payable under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of this Court in the case of UDAIPUR CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS [2017 (10) TMI 975 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] wherein a batch of cases where similar challenges have been made, ultimately were dismissed by the Division Bench of Principal Seat, Jodhpur.
This Division Bench of this Court has already rejected the writ application on the similar challenge - petition dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1378
Appointment of IRP - no intimation communicated to him being appointed as IRP either by Registry or by Operational Creditor or by Corporate Debtor - whether CIRP could be commenced by said IRP or not? - HELD THAT:- It seems that the Operational Creditor is not bothered about his own claim, else for more than 330 days we do not understand how the applicant having claim of more than of crore of rupees will sit over under the impression, will not make enquiry either with registry or with the proposed IRP whose name was known to him as he had received the certified copy of the order and one fine day will make an application for change of IRP’s name.
IBBI is directed not to initiate any enquiry till further orders, if any enquiry is initiated, the same be halted till further direction from this Court.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1377
Seeking to change the name of IRP appointed by the Bench Mr. Aditya Kumar - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel has suggested the name of Mr. Nitish Kumar Sinha to be appointed whose form-2 is also filed alongwith application. We failed to understand that how after 330 days of CIRP period prescribed under the Code, such kind of application can be entertained. Be that as it may, we refer this matter to IBBI to make appropriate enquiry with respect to IRP appointed by the Bench and take appropriate action as required against said IRP.
Application is disposed of with the direction to the IBBI to take appropriate steps.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1376
Maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT:- It is opined that giving one last opportunity to the Appellant but to appear in the matter and therefore the matter is adjourned to 24/11/2021 as last opportunity.
Registry to issue notice.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1375
Right to file reply - Petitioner submits that despite the directions given to the Respondent, no reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent - HELD THAT:- The right to file the reply is hereby closed - List the matter for arguments on 13.08.2021.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Affidavit has been filed on 10.07.2021 but the same is not available on DMS. Therefore, the Petitioner is well advised to share the filing no. with the Registry and the Registry is directed the list the same, if it is defect free - List the matter on 13.08.2021.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1374
Rectification u/s 254 - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As noted that delay of 195 days in filing MA before the ITAT is attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee has also referred to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision dated March 8th 2021 wherein it has been expounded that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall be excluded - MA is duly admitted.
........
|
9911796707
