Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2013 2013 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 1 to 20 of 1003 Records

• 2013 (4) TMI 1013
  
  ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal issues considered by the Appellate Tribunal in this judgment include:

  • Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding alleged bogus purchases from M/s. Vishal Traders amounting to Rs. 4,74,98,513/- was justified.
  • Whether the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,65,73,800/- in the bank account should be treated as cash credit or disallowable under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.

  ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  1. Alleged Bogus Purchases from M/s. Vishal Traders

  Relevant legal framework and precedents: The AO relied on various precedents, including decisions from Delhi, Kerala, and Allahabad High Courts, to justify the disallowance of purchases from M/s. Vishal Traders. The Tribunal also considered past decisions where disallowances were made based on inflation in purchase price.

  Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that while the AO's claim of bogus purchases might hold some truth, the complete disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal acknowledged that the purchases could have been made from other parties, and the bills were merely obtained from Vishal Traders.

  Key evidence and findings: The evidence included statements from Shri Dharmendra J. Pandya, proprietor of Vishal Traders, admitting to issuing bogus bills, and the pattern of deposits and withdrawals in the bank account of Vishal Traders, which indicated bogus transactions.

  Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that while some disallowance was warranted due to potential inflation in purchase prices, the entire disallowance was excessive. The Tribunal considered the yield percentages and wastage ratios, which were consistent with industry standards, indicating that the purchases were genuine, albeit possibly from different suppliers.

  Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued for a partial disallowance, suggesting an addition of 8% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal considered this alongside other cases where disallowances ranged from 6% to 12.5% and concluded that a 25% disallowance was appropriate, especially since the appellant had suggested this percentage before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

  Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that a 25% disallowance of the purchases from Vishal Traders was justified, given the circumstances and evidence presented.

  2. Cash Deposits in Bank Account

  Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue revolved around Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with disallowance of cash payments exceeding prescribed limits.

  Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the findings of the CIT(A) to be insufficiently detailed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the cash book and bank statements to verify the source of cash deposits.

  Key evidence and findings: The appellant claimed that the cash deposits were sourced from withdrawals from other bank accounts. However, the cash book had not been produced before the AO during the assessment, leading to a lack of verification.

  Application of law to facts: The Tribunal determined that the cash book should be admitted and the appellant should be allowed to correlate cash withdrawals with bank statements. If the appellant could substantiate the entries, the cash deposits should not be treated as unexplained cash credits.

  Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the cash deposits were legitimate and supported by bank withdrawals. The Department contended that the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence during the assessment.

  Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant to present the cash book and correlate the entries with bank statements.

  SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "In view of this offer of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) of making disallowance of 25%, we feel that in the facts of the present case, disallowance to the extent of 25% is justified and we hold accordingly."

  Core principles established: The Tribunal established that while allegations of bogus purchases can justify some disallowance, complete disallowance is excessive unless substantiated by evidence of non-existence of transactions. It also emphasized the importance of verifying cash transactions with supporting documents.

  Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal allowed a 25% disallowance of purchases from Vishal Traders and remanded the issue of cash deposits back to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant to present additional evidence.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1012
  
  Issues Presented and Considered:1. Whether the reopening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 solely based on the report of the Investigation Wing department was valid.2. Whether the Assessing Officer hurriedly passed the assessment order without giving the appellant sufficient opportunity.3. Whether the addition made on the share application amount was justified.4. Whether the share application money of the appellant was correctly deemed as bogus without substantial inquiry.5. Whether the order was legally sound and based on the facts of the case.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment Proceedings- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows for the reopening of assessment proceedings if income has escaped assessment.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant challenged the reopening solely based on the Investigation Wing department's report. The Court found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide sufficient reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the order.- Key evidence and findings: The appellant objected to the reopening, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer. The order was passed without adequate opportunity for the appellant to present their case.- Application of law to facts: The Court determined that the lack of reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard rendered the reopening invalid.- Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument regarding the lack of opportunity was upheld by the Court.- Conclusion: The Court held that the reopening of assessment proceedings solely based on the Investigation Wing department's report was not valid due to the lack of sufficient opportunity for the appellant.Issue 2: Adequacy of Opportunity Provided- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of natural justice requires that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.- Key evidence and findings: The appellant's legal issue challenging the reopening was disposed of hastily, leading to a lack of opportunity to present their case adequately.- Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to be heard before making decisions.- Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's claim of inadequate opportunity was accepted by the Court.- Conclusion: The Court ruled that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide the appellant with sufficient opportunity to present their case, rendering the assessment order invalid.Issue 3: Justification of Addition on Share Application Amount- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act governs the assessment of income and additions to be made based on evidence.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The authorities made an addition on the share application amount, which the appellant contested as unjustified.- Key evidence and findings: The show cause notice issued to the appellant was for a lesser amount than the one ultimately added.- Application of law to facts: The Court noted discrepancies in the amount specified in the show cause notice and the final addition made by the authorities.- Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued against the addition, claiming it was not supported by cogent material or substantial inquiry.- Conclusion: The Court found that the addition made on the share application amount was not adequately supported by evidence, leading to a conclusion in favor of the appellant.Significant Holdings:- The Court allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes due to the lack of reasonable opportunity provided during the assessment proceedings.- The Court admitted additional evidences filed by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.Overall, the judgment focused on the importance of providing parties with a fair opportunity to be heard in assessment proceedings and emphasized the need for decisions to be based on substantial evidence and legal principles.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1011
  
  In the Supreme Court of India case citation 2013 (4) TMI 1011, the bench comprising Hon'ble Justices Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and V. Gopala Gowda addressed the appeal concerning the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The primary issue was the Tribunal's failure to independently assess the contraventions of Sections 69, 73(3A), and 77 of the Companies Act 1956, as highlighted in the show cause notice, before addressing the jurisdictional question of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
  
  The Court set aside the Tribunal's order dated 19.09.2003 in the case of Gold Multifab Ltd. v. Chairman, SEBI, and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Supreme Court directed that the Tribunal should not be influenced by its previous observations and should decide the matter on its merits, in accordance with the law, within six months from receiving the order. The Registry was instructed to send a copy of the order to the Tribunal immediately. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1010
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The following core legal questions were presented and considered in the judgment:

  • Whether the appellants retained their status as shareholders in the companies despite the arbitration awards.
  • Whether the appellants had locus standi to maintain applications under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement.
  • Whether the severance of the appellants' connection with the companies was complete upon payment of the amounts awarded under the final arbitration award.
  • Whether the statutory procedures under the Companies Act, 1956, for transfer of shares were adhered to by the respondent companies.
  • Whether the principles of res judicata applied to bar the appellants' claims.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Status as Shareholders

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Companies Act, 1956, and the arbitration agreement and awards.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the arbitration awards did not automatically sever the appellants' connection with the companies. The final award required full payment of all amounts awarded, including those under interim awards, for complete severance.
  • Key evidence and findings: The arbitration agreement and awards, particularly paragraph 48 of the final award, which stipulated severance upon full payment.
  • Application of law to facts: The court found that as the interim awards were not fully complied with, the appellants retained an interest in the companies.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the appellants had been paid the amounts under the final award, but the court held that the interim awards also needed to be satisfied.
  • Conclusions: The appellants retained their status as shareholders until full compliance with all awards.

  Issue 2: Locus Standi under Sections 397 and 398

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 397, 398, and 399 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that the appellants' status as shareholders needed to be verified to determine their eligibility to maintain applications under sections 397 and 398.
  • Key evidence and findings: The appellants' claim of shareholding and the alleged non-compliance with statutory procedures by the companies.
  • Application of law to facts: The court found that the appellants had a prima facie case to be considered as shareholders.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents contended that the appellants were not shareholders, but the court held that this needed further examination.
  • Conclusions: The appellants' locus standi under sections 397 and 398 required further investigation.

  Issue 3: Severance of Connection

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The arbitration awards and the Companies Act, 1956.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted paragraph 48 of the final award to mean that severance required full compliance with both interim and final awards.
  • Key evidence and findings: The language of the arbitration awards and the ongoing execution proceedings for interim awards.
  • Application of law to facts: The court found no complete severance as the interim awards were not fully satisfied.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' claim of severance was rejected due to incomplete compliance with awards.
  • Conclusions: No complete severance occurred, and the appellants retained an interest in the companies.

  Issue 4: Adherence to Statutory Procedures

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 108, 111, and 111A of the Companies Act, 1956.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of section 108 and found that the companies did not adhere to statutory procedures for share transfer.
  • Key evidence and findings: The alleged unilateral cancellation of shares and issuance of duplicates by the companies.
  • Application of law to facts: The court held that the statutory procedures were violated, affecting the appellants' shareholder status.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' actions were found to be in violation of the Companies Act.
  • Conclusions: The companies failed to comply with statutory procedures, impacting the appellants' rights.

  Issue 5: Res Judicata

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of res judicata under the Civil Procedure Code.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that res judicata did not apply as the parties and issues in the company petitions were distinct.
  • Key evidence and findings: The separate legal identities of the companies involved.
  • Application of law to facts: The court held that previous judgments did not bar the current claims.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' reliance on res judicata was rejected.
  • Conclusions: Res judicata did not preclude the appellants' claims.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Upon full payment of the compensation amount and other amounts awarded by us to the claimants, there will be complete severance of connections of Ramesh Chand group."
  • Core principles established: Compliance with all arbitration awards is necessary for severance; statutory procedures for share transfer are mandatory.
  • Final determinations on each issue: The appellants retained shareholder status; locus standi under sections 397 and 398 needed further examination; no complete severance occurred; statutory procedures were violated; res judicata did not apply.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1009
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:

  • Whether the court should grant permission to convene a meeting of the equity shareholders of the transferor company for considering and approving a Scheme of Amalgamation with the transferee company.
  • Whether the conditions laid down by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) via circular CIR/CFD/DIL/5/2013 are applicable to the transferor company in the context of the proposed amalgamation.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Convening the Meeting of Equity Shareholders

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The application is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, particularly concerning the amalgamation of companies and the procedural requirements for shareholder meetings.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered the application and supporting documents, including the affidavit and written submissions, to determine the appropriateness of convening a shareholder meeting. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural formalities to ensure transparency and shareholder participation.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the approval of the Scheme of Amalgamation by the Board of Directors of the transferor company and the proposed date and venue for the shareholder meeting.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the Companies Act to authorize the convening of the meeting, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements such as notice periods, advertisement, and proxy voting.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: There were no competing arguments presented as the respondent was absent, and the court focused on the applicant's compliance with legal requirements.
  • Conclusions: The court granted permission to convene the meeting, detailing specific instructions regarding notices, advertisements, and the appointment of a chairman to oversee the meeting.

  Issue 2: Applicability of SEBI Circular Conditions

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The SEBI circular and Rule 19 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, which govern the listing and regulation of securities on recognized stock exchanges.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court assessed whether the SEBI circular's conditions applied to the applicant, given that the transferor company was not seeking exemption under Rule 19(7) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court acknowledged the applicant's compliance with the listing requirements at the time of getting its shares listed on the recognized stock exchange.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that since the applicant was not seeking any exemptions or new listings, the SEBI circular conditions were not applicable to the proposed amalgamation.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the SEBI circular was irrelevant in this context, and the court found merit in this argument due to the absence of any exemption request.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the SEBI circular conditions did not apply, allowing the amalgamation process to proceed without additional regulatory hurdles.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The conditions laid down by the Securities and Exchange Board of India vide circular CIR/CFD/DIL/5/2013 dated 04.02.2013 are not applicable to the case of the applicant, as the applicant is not seeking exemption under Rule 19(7) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957."
  • Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance with statutory requirements is essential in corporate amalgamations and that regulatory conditions apply only when specific exemptions or new listings are sought.
  • Final Determinations on Each Issue:
    
    • The court authorized the convening of a shareholder meeting to consider the Scheme of Amalgamation, with detailed instructions on procedural compliance.
    • The court determined that the SEBI circular conditions were inapplicable to the applicant, as no exemption under Rule 19(7) was sought.
    
    

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1008
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the Scheme of Amalgamation should be sanctioned by the Court under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  • Whether the objections raised by the objector regarding the valuation report, fairness opinion, and the swap/exchange ratio have merit.
  • Whether the Scheme violates public policy or is against public interest.
  • Whether the Scheme is unconscionable and overlooks the interests of minority shareholders.
  • Whether the voting process at the court-convened meeting was conducted properly and whether the results are valid.
  • Whether the pending SFIO report and investigations should affect the sanctioning of the Scheme.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Valuation Report and Swap/Exchange Ratio

  • Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the principles laid down in Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Hindustan Lever Employees Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., which emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in commercial matters like valuation.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that it cannot substitute its judgment for that of experts in valuation matters. The valuation was conducted by reputable firms, and no mala fide intent was alleged.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The valuation report was prepared by Grant Thornton India LLP and KPMG India Private Limited, with fairness opinions by Citi Group Global Markets India Private Limited and DSP Merrill Lynch Private Limited.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the valuation process followed accepted principles and methodologies, and the objections raised by the objector were based on conjectures.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the objector's arguments, noting that the objector did not propose any alternative valuation or amendment to the swap ratio during the meetings.
  • Conclusions: The objections regarding the valuation report and swap/exchange ratio were dismissed.

  Public Policy and Public Interest

  • Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to the judgments in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, which discuss the legitimacy of tax planning within the framework of law.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the Scheme was not against public policy as it complied with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and allowed for the carry forward of business losses.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The Scheme included provisions for the transfer of unutilized business losses, which is permissible under the law.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the Scheme did not involve any colorable device or subterfuge for tax evasion.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the objector's reliance on outdated judgments, noting that subsequent Supreme Court decisions had clarified the law.
  • Conclusions: The Scheme was not against public policy or public interest.

  Interests of Minority Shareholders

  • Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered whether the interests of minority shareholders were protected under the Scheme.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the same terms applied to all equity shareholders, and the commercial decision was within the purview of the majority shareholders.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The Scheme aimed at consolidating business interests and was approved by the requisite majority of shareholders.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The Court found no evidence that the Scheme was detrimental to minority shareholders.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the objector's claims of unconscionability, noting that the commercial wisdom of the shareholders should prevail.
  • Conclusions: The interests of minority shareholders were not overlooked.

  Voting Process and Validity

  • Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court examined the voting process under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found no irregularities in the voting process, which was conducted under the supervision of a retired Chief Justice.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The voting results were reported to stock exchanges, and no objections were raised by shareholders or FIIs.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the voting process was valid and in compliance with legal requirements.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the objector's claims of invalid votes and irregularities.
  • Conclusions: The voting process and results were valid.

  Pending SFIO Report and Investigations

  • Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered whether pending investigations should affect the sanctioning of the Scheme.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that pending investigations do not bar the sanctioning of a Scheme under Section 391.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The SFIO report was disclosed in the explanatory statement, and shareholders had access to it.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the pending SFIO report did not impact the legality of the Scheme.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court rejected the objector's claims of non-disclosure and suppression of material facts.
  • Conclusions: The pending SFIO report did not affect the sanctioning of the Scheme.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Court is not expected to sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the majority of shareholders of the Company who have given their seal of approval to the Scheme of amalgamation."
  • Core Principles Established: The Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in matters of commercial wisdom, valuation, and tax planning within the legal framework.
  • Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation, dismissing all objections raised by the objector and the applications filed in the Company Petitions.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1007
  
  Issues:
  Sealing of business premises without authority of law; Violation of SEBI Act and RBI Act; Lack of notice before sealing; Compliance with statutory provisions; Fundamental right to carry on business; Protection of investors' interests; Inquiry by statutory authorities; Conditions for unsealing of premises; Inventory preparation; Cooperation in inquiry; Restriction on new business activities; Escrow account for deposits; Non-alienation of assets; Recourse to legal action; FIR lodged against companies; Non-interference in criminal proceedings.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court addressed multiple issues in this judgment. Initially, the petitioners alleged that the sealing of their business premises by District Authorities in Jharkhand was unauthorized and lacked prior notice. The Respondents-State argued that the petitioners were accepting deposits without complying with SEBI and RBI regulations, leading to criminal cases against some companies and directors. The Court emphasized the need to involve statutory authorities responsible for regulating such companies to ensure compliance with relevant laws and protect investors' interests.
  
  The Court ordered the unsealing of business premises under specific conditions. The Registrar of Companies was directed to prepare an inventory of all documents within two weeks, with the help of District Administration, to be kept in safe custody. The statutory authorities, including SEBI, RBI, and others, were instructed to conduct inquiries into the companies' affairs within eight weeks, with petitioners' cooperation. During this period, petitioners were prohibited from engaging in new business activities, advertising, or withdrawing existing accounts without clearance.
  
  Furthermore, the judgment outlined restrictions on asset alienation, deposit handling, and operation of accounts during the inquiry. The Court allowed statutory authorities to take legal action if violations were found, and petitioners could seek redress if aggrieved. The judgment clarified that it did not interfere with criminal proceedings against the companies, emphasizing the importance of following legal procedures in such cases.
  
  The Court directed the petitioners to file regular compliance reports, pay expenses incurred during the process, and obtain necessary documents for the inquiry. Any violation of the Court's directions would be reported to the Court and appropriate action taken. The judgment highlighted the need for transparency and public notice of the Court's directives to ensure accountability and protection of investors' interests. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on a specified date, with copies of the order provided to relevant parties for compliance.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1006
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Maintainability of the company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  2. Eligibility of the petitioner to file the petition based on shareholding criteria under Section 399.
  3. Redemption of preference shares and its impact on share capital.
  4. Alleged manipulation and mismanagement by the company's directors.
  5. Validity of resolutions passed by the Board of Directors and their implementation.
  6. Petitioner's rights and remedies concerning alleged oppression and mismanagement.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Maintainability of the Company Petition:
  
  The primary issue was whether the company petition filed under Sections 397 and 398 was maintainable. The learned Company Law Board held that to maintain such a petition, the petitioner must hold not less than 1/10th of the issued share capital. The appellant held only 12,00,000 equity shares, amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000, which was less than the required 1/10th of the paid-up share capital of Rs. 12,07,87,000. Consequently, the petition was deemed not maintainable.
  
  2. Eligibility Based on Shareholding Criteria:
  
  The appellant contended that he was entitled to maintain the petition under Section 399 due to his right to additional shares based on a Board resolution. However, the Board found that the appellant did not have 10% of the paid-up capital on the date of filing the petition. The contention that the appellant's shareholding was diluted after the acts of complaint was not supported by evidence, as there was no reduction in share capital.
  
  3. Redemption of Preference Shares:
  
  A significant issue was whether the 2,00,000 preference shares were redeemed. The respondents argued that these shares were not redeemed due to lack of profits, and the amount was shown as a loan. The appellant's claim that the shares were redeemed was not accepted, as redemption can only occur out of profits or by allotment of shares, which was not the case here.
  
  4. Alleged Manipulation and Mismanagement:
  
  The appellant alleged mismanagement and manipulation by the company's directors, including the improper handling of share application money. The Board held that these allegations required detailed inquiry and were not grounds to maintain the petition without meeting the eligibility criteria under Section 399.
  
  5. Validity of Board Resolutions:
  
  The appellant sought implementation of a Board resolution to issue additional shares. However, the process of allotment was incomplete, requiring statutory approvals. The Board held that the appellant could not claim to hold 1/10th of the share capital based on an unimplemented resolution.
  
  6. Petitioner's Rights and Remedies:
  
  The appellant argued that his rights as a minority shareholder were defeated by the company's actions. However, the Board emphasized that the remedy for enforcing the contract was available in Civil Court, not before the Company Law Board, due to the lack of eligibility under Section 399. The appellant's conduct, including signing balance sheets acknowledging the share capital arrangement, estopped him from challenging it.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Company Law Board's decision that the petition was not maintainable due to the appellant's failure to meet the statutory shareholding requirement. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural and statutory requirements in company law disputes.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1005
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Claim of unpaid dues by the petitioner.
  2. Defense of the respondent-company regarding the non-existence of the claimed debt.
  3. Applicability of winding up under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  4. Allegations of personal motives behind the petition.
  5. Evaluation of evidence and documentation provided by the petitioner.
  6. Legal principles governing the winding-up process.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Claim of Unpaid Dues by the Petitioner:
  
  The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of the respondent company due to an alleged unpaid amount of Rs. 17,89,189/- along with interest. The petitioner contended that the respondent company had purchased goods on credit with a promise to pay before the due date, failing which interest would be applicable. Despite repeated demands, the petitioner claimed that the respondent company failed to settle the dues related to 17 bills.
  
  2. Defense of the Respondent-Company Regarding the Non-Existence of the Claimed Debt:
  
  The respondent company denied the existence of any debt, asserting that no goods were supplied by the petitioner, and the bills raised were frivolous. The respondent argued that the transactions were not business-related but were financing transactions in the form of bill purchasing. The company also contended that it was a going concern and there was no ground for winding up under the cited sections of the Companies Act.
  
  3. Applicability of Winding Up Under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956:
  
  The court examined the applicability of Sections 433 and 434, noting that the remedy is discretionary and not a matter of right. The court emphasized that mere inability to pay debts does not automatically warrant winding up, especially if the debt is disputed. The principles laid down in previous judgments, such as the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case, were considered, highlighting that winding up is not a legitimate means for enforcing disputed debts.
  
  4. Allegations of Personal Motives Behind the Petition:
  
  The respondent company alleged that the petition was filed due to personal grievances, as the petitioner was related to the Managing Director of the respondent company. The court noted these allegations but focused on the legal merits of the case rather than personal motivations.
  
  5. Evaluation of Evidence and Documentation Provided by the Petitioner:
  
  The petitioner failed to provide convincing evidence of the alleged transactions. The court noted that the petitioner relied heavily on ledger accounts rather than authenticated evidence of business transactions. The documents submitted, such as lorry receipts and bills, did not establish a prima facie case of the claimed debt. The court found that the petitioner could not substantiate the delivery of goods to the respondent company.
  
  6. Legal Principles Governing the Winding-Up Process:
  
  The court reiterated the principles that guide the discretion of the company court in winding-up petitions, emphasizing that such petitions should not be used to pressurize companies into paying disputed debts. The court referred to the judgment in the Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. case, which held that winding up is inappropriate where there is a bona fide dispute over the debt.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court concluded that the petitioner's claim was disputed and unsubstantiated by evidence. Given the lack of documentation proving the delivery of goods and the existence of a bona fide dispute, the petition did not merit consideration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1004
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No.33/99-CE dated 08.07.2009, denial of exemption benefit, rejection of refund claim, withholding refund during appeal process.
  
  Interpretation of Notification No.33/99-CE: The petitioner claimed entitlement to refund of excise duty under the incentive scheme covered by Notification No.33/99-CE. The appellate authority held that if the manufacturer proves substantial expansion and files monthly duty paid statements, they are entitled to exemption without the need for a formal refund claim. The appellant provided necessary documents and information as per Trade Notice No.116/2000 to support their claim. The denial of benefit and rejection of the claim were deemed unfair and improper as the appellant fulfilled all conditions as per the Trade Notice.
  
  Denial of Exemption Benefit: The department rejected the claim on the ground of limitation, despite the absence of any time limitation specified in Notification No.33/99-CE. The rejection was considered improper as the appellant had submitted required documents within the specified time frame of the Trade Notice. The department's failure to verify the claim communicated via RT-12 for the month of November 2000 was highlighted as a lapse on their part. The denial of benefit based on technical lapses was deemed unjust, especially when caused by neglect on the part of authorities.
  
  Withholding Refund During Appeal: The petitioner's application for refund was not considered due to an ongoing appeal, despite no stay being granted by the appellate authority. The CBEC's Excise Manual instruction prohibits withholding refunds solely based on the filing of an appeal without a stay order. The petitioner's claim was unjustly declined without reason, and no response was provided despite two opportunities to do so. The court directed respondent No.3 to implement the appellate authority's order within six weeks in the absence of a granted stay.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1003
  
  The High Court of Madras directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for exemption from service tax based on Section 65(90a)(i) of the Finance Act 1994 and dispose of it within four weeks.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1002
  
  Issues involved: Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for an assessee co-operative society which did not file the return of income within the specified time.
  
  The Appellate Tribunal ITAT COCHIN, in the case of a co-operative society, considered the appeal against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal noted that the issue for consideration was the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It was observed that since the assessee had not filed the return of income within the specified time as per the relevant sections of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and held that the assessee's failure to comply with the filing requirements rendered them ineligible for the deduction. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed based on this finding. The order was pronounced on April 22, 2013.
  

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1001
  
  Issues Involved: Various petitions challenging tax demands and seeking interim relief.
  
  Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (SLP(C)No.36187/2012):
  The petitioner sought interim relief for future tax demands, not past transactions. The Court directed payment of 50% of future demands within a month, with penalties stayed. Refunds ordered if petitioners succeed.
  
  M/s.Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (SLP(C)No.33923/2012), Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & Anr. (SLP(C)No.33954/2012), M/s.Adani Enterprises Ltd. vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (SLP(C)No.37712/2012):
  Conditional interim orders passed, requiring 50% payment of past tax demands with absolute stay on penalties. Future demands to be paid within 30 days, with refund provisions if petitioners succeed.
  
  M/s.GMR Kamalanga Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (SLP(C)Nos.37708-37709/2012):
  Interim stay granted on entry tax demand notices upon depositing 50% of amounts, with penalties stayed. Future demands to be paid within 30 days, with refund provisions upon success.
  
  M/s.Emami Paper Mills Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (SLP(C) NO. 1426 of 2013):
  Similar to previous cases, interim relief granted for future tax demands upon payment of 50% within a month. Refund provisions if petitioners succeed.
  
  Other Petitions (SLP(C)Nos. 40147/2012, 40146/2012, 37455/2012, 37728/2012, 37728/2012, 38919/2012, 449/2013, 8939/2013, 9844/2013, 11060/2013):
  Conditional interim orders passed requiring 50% payment of past tax demands with penalties stayed. Future demands to be paid within 30 days, with refund provisions upon success.
  

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 1000
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Claims for enhancement of compensation for lands acquired u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  2. Methodology for determining compensation.
  3. Uniform rate of compensation.
  4. Deduction for development charges.
  5. Cumulative annual increase in land value.
  6. Application of belting system.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Claims for Enhancement of Compensation:
  All matters involve claims for enhancement of compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in several states including Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Supreme Court granted leave in all Special Leave Petitions and listed them as Civil Appeals.
  
  2. Methodology for Determining Compensation:
  The Court took up the matters state-wise, starting with Haryana. Specific cases were selected to govern the rest. The High Court awarded compensation at Rs. 235/- per sq. yard uniformly, despite different land types. The Reference Court and High Court applied various methods to assess compensation, including comparison with sale transactions and considering the land's potential for development.
  
  3. Uniform Rate of Compensation:
  In cases like Smt. Ashrafi and Ors., the High Court fixed compensation at Rs. 220/- per sq. yard, while in Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case, the High Court reduced the rate from Rs. 325/- per sq. yard to Rs. 90/- per sq. yard but later assessed it at Rs. 280/- per sq. yard. The Supreme Court found these compensations inadequate and revised them to Rs. 325/- per sq. yard.
  
  4. Deduction for Development Charges:
  The Court addressed the issue of deduction for development charges. In cases like Sucha Singh and Ors., the deduction of 40% was deemed excessive, and a more realistic cut of 33 1/3 per cent was applied. The Court emphasized that deductions should reflect the land's situation and development needs.
  
  5. Cumulative Annual Increase in Land Value:
  For cases like Mukesh Kumar and others, the Court accepted the argument for a cumulative annual increase of 12% in land value, rather than a flat rate, to reflect the sharp rise in land prices. The compensation was reassessed by applying this cumulative rate from the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
  
  6. Application of Belting System:
  The Court found the belting system inappropriate in cases like Mukesh Kumar, where the High Court had resorted to it. The Supreme Court discarded the belting system and reassessed compensation based on cumulative annual increase.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court revised compensation rates in various cases, applying a cumulative annual increase and reducing excessive deductions for development charges. The revised compensation rates were applied uniformly across similar cases, ensuring just compensation for the acquired lands. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 999
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Determination of undisclosed income.
  2. Computation of capital receipts.
  3. Allowance of business expenses.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Determination of Undisclosed Income:
  The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the undisclosed income at a lower figure than assessed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The A.O. assessed the undisclosed income based on seized documents and statements recorded during a search operation u/s 132 on the premises of the Manek Group and associated entities. The A.O. noted unaccounted sale proceeds and transactions not recorded in regular books, leading to the assessment of undisclosed income for three assessees: Gujarat Multi Gas Base Chemicals Pvt. Ltd (GMGB), Manek Chemical Pvt Ltd (MCPL), and Shri Ram Chemical Industries (SRCI).
  
  2. Computation of Capital Receipts:
  The assessees argued that the total receipts included capital receipts which should not be treated as taxable income. They claimed that out of the total receipts of Rs. 9,82,59,103/-, Rs. 1,91,02,221/- were capital receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted this claim after verification, reducing the undisclosed sales to Rs. 7,91,56,882/-.
  
  3. Allowance of Business Expenses:
  The assessees further contended that the total payments on the debit side included business expenses and capital outgoings. They claimed Rs. 5,88,32,295/- as business revenue expenditure out of the total payments of Rs. 8,89,48,819/-. The A.O. initially rejected this claim due to a lack of detailed evidence. However, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim after examining the seized documents and the A.O.'s remand report, concluding that the expenses were justifiable and should be deducted from the undisclosed sales.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Ld. CIT(A) determined the net undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 2,03,24,587/- after allowing for capital receipts and business expenses. This was allocated among the three assessees based on their proportionate year-wise sales. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The decision was influenced by judicial precedents that entire undisclosed sales could not be added as income, but only the estimated profits embedded in those sales.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 998
  
  Issues involved: Disallowance of royalty expenditure as capital in nature, consistency in decision-making by CIT(A), disallowance of depreciation on royalty expenditure considered capital under section 32(1) of the Act.
  
  Disallowance of Royalty Expenditure:
  The Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 3,98,64,546/- as royalty paid by the assessee, deeming it capital in nature. This issue stemmed from previous assessment years, with the current year's assessment holding 25% of the royalty expenditure as capital. The Ld. Authorised Representative cited a favorable decision by ITAT, Pune Bench, in the assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The ITAT observed that the royalty payment was linked to sales turnover, spread over multiple years, and directly related to the sales of the licensed product. Citing precedents, including Climate Systems India Ltd. and Fenner Woodroffe & Co. Ltd., the ITAT concluded that the royalty expenditure was revenue in nature and allowable. Given the consistency in facts, the ITAT upheld that the royalty paid for goods sold domestically constituted a revenue expenditure, directing the Assessing Officer accordingly.
  
  Consistency in Decision-Making by CIT(A):
  The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in not following the rule of consistency and deviating from the previous order without any change in facts or law. However, the specific details or reasoning behind this alleged inconsistency were not elaborated upon in the judgment. Despite the lack of explicit details, this issue was raised as a ground for appeal, indicating a perceived inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s decision-making process.
  
  Disallowance of Depreciation on Royalty Expenditure:
  The CIT(A) was criticized for not allowing depreciation on the royalty expenditure considered capital under section 32(1) of the Act. Additionally, the failure to consider the royalty expenditure from previous years, treated as capital expenditure, for depreciation on the written down value was highlighted. This aspect of the judgment emphasized the failure to grant depreciation on the royalty expenditure deemed capital, as well as the omission in accounting for earlier capital expenditure for depreciation purposes.
  
  In conclusion, the ITAT Pune ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and directing the Assessing Officer to treat the royalty expenditure as a revenue expenditure. The judgment highlighted the linkage of royalty payments to sales revenue and the consistent application of this principle in previous decisions. The issues of consistency in decision-making by the CIT(A) and the disallowance of depreciation on capital royalty expenditure were also addressed in the judgment, underscoring the importance of adhering to legal principles and precedents in tax assessments.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 997
  
  Issues involved: Dismissal of complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 due to lack of money lending license and applicability of Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938.
  
  Analysis of the Judgment:
  
  1. The 23 complaint cases were dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) based on the absence of a money lending license, citing Section 3 of the Act of 1938, which rendered the debts legally unrecoverable despite being issued in discharge of liability.
  
  2. The cheques involved in the cases were negotiable instruments, and the Act of 1938 does not apply to loans given on the basis of negotiable instruments like cheques, as per the definition of loan under Section 2(8) of the Act. This interpretation was supported by a Supreme Court judgment in Gajanan & Ors. v. Seth Brindaban, 1971(1) SCR 657.
  
  3. The High Court held that the MM erred in dismissing the complaints solely on the ground of the Act of 1938, as the bar did not apply to loans based on negotiable instruments. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the MM for a decision in accordance with the law.
  
  4. Parties were directed to appear before the MM on a specified date, and the trial court record was to be returned promptly. A copy of the order was to be transmitted to the trial court, and pending applications were disposed of.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 996
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta setting aside the order of the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and restoring the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta.
  
  Summary:
  The respondent had filed a Complaint Case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the petitioner, who then filed a Criminal Revision before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The Chief Judge set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Metropolitan Magistrate. The respondent filed a Revisional Application before the High Court seeking restoration of the original order. The High Court set aside the Chief Judge's order and restored the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate directing the investigating agency to submit a report. The investigating agency was directed to complete the investigation and submit the report to the trial court within six months.
  
  In conclusion, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of with the direction to complete the investigation within the specified time frame, and all contentions of the parties were left open.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 995
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deduction u/s 10A on foreign exchange fluctuation gain.
  2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for payments made to parties outside India.
  3. Disallowance of 20% of recruitment and training charges.
  4. Addition u/s 92CA(3) by TPO on account of software services, human resources management service, and excess credit period granted to AES.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Deduction u/s 10A on Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Gain:
  The A.O. disallowed the deduction u/s 10A on foreign exchange fluctuation gain, considering it not derived from export business. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, which held that exchange fluctuation gain is incidental to business operations and eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was identical to earlier years and no contrary evidence was presented by the Revenue.
  
  2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for Payments Made to Parties Outside India:
  The A.O. disallowed payments made to the UK branch without TDS, considering them liable for tax deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the payments were not chargeable to tax in India as the entities did not have a PE in India, and thus, Section 195 was not applicable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the facts were identical to earlier years and no new evidence was presented by the Revenue.
  
  3. Disallowance of 20% of Recruitment and Training Charges:
  The A.O. disallowed 20% of recruitment and training expenses, assuming they were not wholly for business purposes. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the expenses were a business necessity and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the facts were identical to earlier years and no contrary evidence was presented by the Revenue.
  
  4. Addition u/s 92CA(3) by TPO on Account of Software Services, Human Resources Management Service, and Excess Credit Period Granted to AES:
  The TPO made adjustments for international transactions, which the CIT(A) deleted, stating that the facts were identical to earlier years and the assessee's operations were correctly characterized as a distributor. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the facts were identical to earlier years and no new evidence was presented by the Revenue.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 994
  
  Issues involved: Revenue's appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-III dated 20-03-2009 regarding the addition of undisclosed income of the assessee.
  
  Summary:
  1. The Revenue appealed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad, challenging the restriction of the addition of undisclosed income of the assessee. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in law by not properly appreciating the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer.
  
  2. The brief facts of the case involved a search u/s 132 in the 'Manek Group' cases, where the assessee, a shareholder and director of certain companies, had undisclosed income assessed at Rs. 17,36,546/-. The CIT(A) provided relief to the assessee by considering the telescoping of undisclosed income of the group for acquisition of unexplained investments, citing the Apex Court's ruling in a similar case.
  
  3. The CIT(A) relied on the group's acceptance of undisclosed income and tax payment in the appeals of the three group concerns, supporting the contention that the investments made by the appellant were funded by the undisclosed income of the group. The CIT(A) restricted the addition made by the AO to Rs. 8,31,645/-, granting relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs. 9,04,791/-, which constituted the value of unexplained investments.
  
  4. The Tribunal upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) based on the decisions in the cases of the three Group Companies, GMGB, MPCL & SRCI, as the related grounds of appeal were partly allowed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal.

  ---

12345........ 51