|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1473 Records
-
2022 (11) TMI 1393 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Contravention of time limitation - personal hearing notice dated 20.10.2020 scheduling adjudication in respect of the impugned SCNs - Section 11A (11) of CEA - HELD THAT:- The consistent position since 1985 (vide Circular No. 223/8/85-CX.6 dated 21.03.1985) is that the determination of duty, under sub-Section 10, shall be completed within six months from date of notice, where it was possible to do so. The present case falls under sub-section 1 of Section 11A, and thus, the applicable time limit would be, as far as possible, six months from date of notice. Even if one were to accede to the position that the statutory period of six months was elastic and admitted of some flexibility, the excess of time, over and above six months must be justifiable and reasonable.
As to whether the phrase under sub-section (11) being 'where it is possible to do so' would stand justified by the sequence of events that have been noted in the matter, the categoric conclusion is that it does not. There are admittedly, absolutely no circumstances warranting or justifying the pendency of the SCNs on the call book for 21 long years.
The Gujarat High Court in the case of SIDDHI VINAYAK SYNTEX PVT LTD. VERSUS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], considered the case of delay ranging up to 15 years in that case and had set aside all SCNs as being unreasonably and unduly belated. The Bench has also expressed the view that the concept of the call book, created by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and transfer of pending cases to the call book, is contrary to the statutory mandate. Such transfer provides for an extrastatutory period of limitation, impermissible and contrary to law.
The SCNs in the present case have been issued in 2001 and there has been areference to the call book immediately thereafter. Para 9.4 of the 2017 Circular requires a formal communication to be issued to the noticee informing them that the case has been transferred to the call book. This requirement does not flow from the earlier Circulars - the petitioner has been in touch with the Assessing Officer requesting timely adjudication of the SCNs and on 13.06.2003 there was a communication issued by the respondents to the effect that the demands under the SCNs are based on audit objections that are pending closure. The officer states that 'show cause notices will be decided on merits at the appropriate time'.
In the present cases, the hearing notices have been issued for the first time only in 2020. The notices also provide no clarity as to whether the contest on the audit objections continues, has been resolved or whether the matters have merely been revived by the assessing authority.
There has been considerable and unacceptable delay on the part of the respondents to have revived the SCNs issued originally in 1999, in 2020 - the impugned proceedings are barred by limitation. The challenge to the same is upheld - Petition allowed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1392 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Assessment u/s 153C - seized document as belongs to assessee or not? - Scope of amendment - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that for the year under consideration, since the search was conducted prior to amendment in section 153C it was an essential pre-requisite that the incriminating documents on the basis of which the assessment was framed must “belong” to the assessee.
From the contents of the assessment order and the observations made by CIT(Appeals), even the AO has not alleged that the documents “belonged” to the assessee and the AO has himself stated in the order that the documents “pertain” to the assessee.
Therefore, in the instant set of facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein he has held that since the documents do not “belong” to the assessee, then the additions are not liable to be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1391 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - ALP of the transaction involving Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses - HELD THAT:- This Court in Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd [2015 (12) TMI 1332 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 634 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that merely because there is an incidental benefit to the foreign AE would not mean that AMP expenses have been incurred by the assessee for promoting the brand of the foreign AE. The Court further held that provisions of Chapter X cannot be invoked in cases wherein the existence of an international transaction is unable to be shown. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal
-
2022 (11) TMI 1390 - ITAT DELHI
Income taxable in India - Taxability of short term capital gain arising on sale of shares - Gains derived by a resident of one of the States from the alienation of shares (other than shares quoted on an approved stock exchange) - HELD THAT:- A careful reading of Article 13(4) makes it clear that the source State has the authority to tax the capital gain, only if, the value of shares sold is derived principally from immovable property situated in the source State, other than, property in which the business of the company whose shares were sold was carried out.
In case of JCIT Vs. Merrill Lynch Capital Market Espana SA SV [2019 (10) TMI 1163 - ITAT MUMBAI] while dealing with an identical provision under India – Spain DTAA has held that the onus is entirely on the AO to prove that the value of shares is derived principally from immovable property situated in the source country. In other words, it has to be proved that the Indian company in which the assessee had invested the money towards equity was principally holding immovable property. Neither any such allegation has been made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order before invoking Article 13(4) of India – Netherlands Tax Treaty, nor in course of the proceeding before DRP or even the Tribunal any material has been brought on record by Revenue to demonstrate that the condition of Article 13(4) of India – Netherlands Tax Treaty is satisfied.
Thus the short term capital gain will not be taxable even under Article 13(4) of the India – Netherlands Tax Treaty. Thus, seen from any angle, the short-term capital gain arising on sale of shares is not taxable in India. In view of the aforesaid, we delete the addition made by the AO. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1389 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment u/s 153A - incriminating material of document has been found at the time of search or not? - HELD THAT:- Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that both CIT(A) and the ITAT have given concurrent findings of fact that no incriminating material has been found during the search. The ITAT also recorded that the present case of the respondent was of non-abated assessment. In fact, the AO in his remand report filed before the CIT(A) admitted that no documents were found or seized during the course of search nor there was any admission by the Assessee.
This Court in Shiv Kumar Agarwal [2022 (8) TMI 268 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held where assessment of the respondent had attained finality prior to the date of search and no incriminating material of document has been found at the time of search, no addition could be made u/s 153A as the case of the respondent was of non-abated assessment.
Though the judgment in Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has been challenged by Revenue in connected matters and is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others. Vs. State of Kerala and Another[2000 (7) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT] the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and Shiv Kumar Agarwal (supra). Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1388 - SC ORDER
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reopening beyond period of four years - HELD THAT:- In the present special leave petition, the reopening was post four years and therefore, we are not inclined to issue notice as full facts had been disclosed by the assessee. The assessee is not required to state the law, which the Revenue feels may be attracted.
Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1387 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - committing large scale fraud with the investors and misappropriating their hardearned money - rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the allegations and the fact that the Enforcement Directorate has already attached the properties of worth Rs.1,28,08,640/-, this Court can not record a finding that the accused-applicant is not, prima facie, guilty for committing the offence.
This Court is not satisfied that the accused-applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail - the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1386 - ITAT CUTTACK
Assessment orders liable to be annulled being passed beyond the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, a perusal of the assessment orders in the present case clearly shows that DNCR, which is to be clearly hand written on the assessment orders is absent in the present case. It is also an admitted fact that DNCR original which has been produced by CIT DR does contain the entry in respect of the date of assessment order. DNCR also does mention the date of the assessment order as 30.12.2016.
DNCR does not contain the date of the entry made in respect of the assessment order. It only mentions the date of the assessment order as 30.12.2016. Therefore, we are of the view that DNCR register does not help the case of the revenue.
CIT DR has placed before us the file of the JCIT, wherein, he has granted the approval u/s.153D in respect of the assessment order on 30.12.2016. Again, this does not help the revenue insofar as it is only in respect of the approval u/s.153D from the JCIT. It does not prove that the order has been passed on 30.12.2016.
A perusal of the order of M/s. Nidan [2018 (5) TMI 1024 - ITAT CUTTACK] clearly shows that this issue has been considered by the Tribunal, wherein, it is held that the assessment order therein is barred by limitation, as upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court [2022 (7) TMI 1444 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] - The assessee, herein, is a partner in M/s. Nidan (supra).
Thus, the facts in the case of M/s. Nidan (supra) most specifically in respect of period of limitation would apply paripasu in respect of the assessee also. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessment orders passed in assessee’s case purported to have been passed on 30.12.2016 is barred by limitation and, therefore, quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1385 - SUPREME COURT
Public Auction - calculation of stamp duty on market value of property - constitutional validity of Section 47A as applicable to West Bengal - applicability of the section on public auction - HELD THAT:- There are no slightest hesitation in upholding the view that the provision of Section 47A of the Act cannot be said to have any application to a public auction carried out through court process/receiver as that is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct market value of the property.
It is no doubt true that in a court auction, the price obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has to take care of a scenario where the auction may be challenged which could result in passage of time in obtaining perfection of title, with also the possibility of it being overturned. But then that is a price obtainable as a result of the process by which the property has to be disposed of. We cannot lose sight of the very objective of the introduction of the Section whether under the West Bengal Amendment Act or in any other State, i.e., that in case of under valuation of property, an aspect not uncommon in our country, where consideration may be passing through two modes - one the declared price and the other undeclared component, the State should not be deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect the correct price in the document as something more has been paid through a different method. The objective is to take care of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected and the price actually obtainable in a free market should be capable of being stamped.
It is trite to say that the mere existence of tenancy results in a considerable decline in the market value of the property as they may have their statutory rights and even otherwise, the purchaser would be acquiring the property hardly in an ideal scenario and would be left with the burden to take legal processes for the eviction. In such a scenario, there is actually a great depression in the market value of the property as even if a fair transaction without an auction takes place with full reflection of price, the transacted value would be half or less of a vacant property. The tenancy aspect can hardly be said to be an aspect which could be ignored in the determination of the price.
This reference is required to be answered by opining that in case of a public auction monitored by the court, the discretion would not be available to the Registering Authority Under Section 47A of the Act - The reference is answered accordingly and the appeals stand dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1384 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - new scheme u/s 148A - faceless assessment - Whether notice is wholly without jurisdiction as it has been issued in violation of the notification dated 29.03.2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes? - HELD THAT:- The submission proceeds that by the said notification, a scheme has been formulated whereunder issuance of notice u/s 148 has to be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, whereas in the instant case, the aforesaid procedure has not been followed, rather the notice has been issued by a particular person and not in a face less manner.
Respondent prays for and is allowed one month’s time for filling counter affidavit. Two weeks thereafter is allowed to learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
List for admission/final disposal immediately after six weeks - Till the next date of listing, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure-8) shall remain stayed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1383 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - validity of order passed by AO - Lack of jurisdiction - Whether the order passed by AO/ITO Ward-5 (III), Kolkata in pursuance of the direction issued u/s 263 is devoid of jurisdiction? - HELD THAT:- When it is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer, namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(III) was divested of the jurisdiction on or after 28th August, 2012, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act could not have been given effect to.
Tribunal has assigned the following reason which, in our opinion, is both factually and legally correct which says once the order u/s 127(2) was passed by the Ld. CIT-II, Kolkata unconditionally transferring the jurisdiction over the appellant’s case to the charge of DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-XVII, Kolkata; then by virtue of such an order, the jurisdiction enjoyed by ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata in terms of Section 124 read with Section 120(1) & (2) stood abrogated.No substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1382 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of CIT order u/s 251 - dismissal of appeal for non prosecution - denial of natural justice - no opportunity was allowed to the appellant - None appeared on behalf of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a laconic and non-speaking order and has dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, does not empower the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass the order on merits of the appeal before him after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1381 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - petitioner is neither accused in the FIR nor in the remand application - Money Laundering - illegal demand and extortion of money by the accused - HELD THAT:- The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, the Income Tax officials said to have raided the hotel Sheraton Grand at Whitefield Bengaluru, where accused Suryakanth Tiwari had occupied in the hotel and it is alleged that on 30.06.2022 he has destroyed the electronic evidence and attempted to chew the paper having some entries and used criminal force on the IT officials and prevented them from discharging official duty. Admittedly, the complaint came to be filed after 12 days ie., on 12.7.2022 which is registered as Crime No. 129/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 204, 120B, 353 of IPC. Admittedly, there is no offence of 384 of IPC has been registered by police. However, it is brought to the notice of the Court by SPP II, that there is averments at Para "5" of the complaint, it was mentioned that the accused persons i.e., Suryakanth Tiwari, his brother Rajanikanth Tiwari, his associates Hemanth Jaiswal and others were conspiring and parallely collecting illegal levy on coal and Suryakanth Tiwari has admitted in his statement about the collection of illegal levy.
Though the learned senior counsel has rightly contended that the Kadugodi police at Bengaluru may not investigate the offence under Section 384 of IPC which is said to be committed at Chhattisgarh State and the Karnataka police can investigate only in respect of the offence under Sections 353, 186 and 204 of IPC, however, the Section 120B has been inserted by the police, where there was allegation of conspiracy between the Suryakanth Tiwari and other accused in collecting illegal levy on coal mining. That apart, destroying the electronic evidence is pertaining to the information found in the mobile phone, in respect of the offence committed at Chhattisgarh under Section 384 of IPC. Even otherwise, merely a provision of any Section of IPC has been left out in the FIR or in the complaint, that itself does not mean the police should not investigate the matter. They are very much having power to investigate the matter for the offence which were not mentioned in the FIR in addition to the sections in the FIR, however, they should obtain the permission of the Magistrate.
On bare reading of the sub-section 1 and 3 of the 156 of Cr.P.C which empowers the police to investigate any cognizable offences which the Court having jurisdiction and the Magistrate is empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned and on reading of Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C, the place of trial in case of the theft, extortion or robbery which may incurred into or tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed - On the bare reading of the provisions of Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C which empowers the Court having jurisdiction of four places i.e., (1) The Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, Or (2) the stolen property which is the subject matter of offence was possessed by any person committing it, Or (3) By any person who received, Or (4) retain such property, knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. Therefore, it cannot be said the Court having jurisdiction to try to the offence only if the offence is committed within the local jurisdiction, but also the other three places of Courts can try the offence as per Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C.
But here in this case, the name of the present petitioner has neither appeared in the first information nor in the complaint/first information or in the requisition of the police for investigating for the offence under Section 384 of IPC, in order to challenge the FIR and investigation in Crime No. 129/2022 registered by Kadugodi police. This petitioner has no locus standi to question the investigation or quashing the FIR which was registered against the accused Surykanth Tiwari - The matter requires to be investigated by the police to verify whether the accused/Suryakanth Tiwari is involved in destroying the electronic and other documentary evidence at Bengaluru in respect of offence under section 384 of IPC, which may be committed at Chhattisgarh.
As regards to the another contention raised by the learned senior counsel for petitioner that the offence took place at Bengaluru in Crime No. 129/22 cannot be a predicate offence for registering case under PML Act by the ED at Chhattisgarh, wherein this petitioner was made as co-accused along with accused Suryakanth Tiwari and others for involving in the money laundering case. In this aspect, when the Suryakanth Tiwari was accused in predicate offence and when money laundering case has been registered against him and this petitioner was arrested in the money laundering case as co-accused, therefore, he has to challenge the same before the Special Court at Chhattisgarh or before the High court of Chhattisgarh against registering of case by the ED by taking the offence committed at Bengaluru as predicate offence.
Thus, when the petitioner is not an accused in crime No.120/2022 and his name was neither found in the FIR or the first information statement or in the request made by the police for investigating the offence under Section 384 of IPC, this petitioner cannot question the same. If the ED consider the Crime No. 129/2022 as a predicate offence and Section 384 of IPC has schedule offence for initiating any proceedings it has to be challenged before the Chhattisgarh State where this petitioner is an accused. Therefore, the petition filed by this petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1380 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Validity of the Supplementary Complaint under sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - vicarious liability can be fastened against the petitioner who is one of the director - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear that there is allegation against the petitioner who happens to be director of the company whose case has been considered and dismissed. Merely because he has been cleared by the Income Tax Department allegation made against the petitioner are not rendered infructuous. It is not known whether in that income tax return the proceeds of crime have been shown by the petitioner in that return or not.
Moreover in the judgment relied by Mr. Rai in the case of J. Sekar Alias Sekar Reddy [2022 (5) TMI 309 - SUPREME COURT], the facts of that case are different. The C.B.I. and E.D. has closed the case and the income tax department has also closed the case and in that scenario the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that finding of the High court is not sustainable.
So far as reliance placed in Ram Kishan Rohtagi [1982 (12) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT], the fact of that case is on different footing. That case was arising out of Food Adulteration Act and the director of the company has been made accused on presumption and in that scenario the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given finding that when there is no averment of the role of director and who is looking day to day affairs of the company, the prosecution is bad. Where as in the case in hand there is averment in the complaint that the petitioner is looking after day to day affairs of the company. The petitioner is facing charge in money laundering case. How the white collor criminals affect the fibre of country economic structure, has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the several judgments. This crime has been made in well planned manner and not in the hit of moment as occurred in section 302 of I.P.C. Further the petitioner has not taken care of the order of the High Court whereby he has been provided interim protection.
The Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the chargesheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the chargesheet and for not taking on file. Cognizance was taken considering the report filed by the E.D. Order of issuance of process is not illegal. Mens rea is subject matter of trial.
No case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1379 - ITAT KOLKATA
Validity of revision order passed by CIT w/o mentioning DIN - no Document Identification Number (DIN) has been mentioned in the body of the impugned order which was in violation of Circular No.19 of 2019 of CBDT - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of “Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO” [2022 (11) TMI 1348 - ITAT KOLKATA] taking note of the directions/observations made in the case of “Pradeep Goyel vs. UOI” [2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT] has quashed the order of PCIT issued without on the ground of non-mentioning of DIN in the said order.
So far as the contention of the Ld. DR that the DIN has been duly mentioned in the intimation letter for order u/s 263 of the even date, is concerned, we note that as per para 2 of the CBDT Circular No.19/2019, the DIN should be duly quoted in the body of such communication or order. Therefore, the mentioning of DIN on intimation letter does not validate the order issued without DIN being mentioned in the body of the order, and hence the same is liable to be treated as non-est.
Thus in the light of the decisions of “Tata Medical Centre Trust” [2022 (7) TMI 1334 - ITAT KOLKATA] and “Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO” [2022 (11) TMI 1348 - ITAT KOLKATA] the impugned order of ld. CIT(Exemption) is, hereby, quashed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1378 - ITAT KOLKATA
Validity of Revision u/s 263 - order of PCIT on the ground of non-mentioning of DIN - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of “Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO” [2022 (11) TMI 1348 - ITAT KOLKATA] taking note of the aforesaid directions/observations made by in the case of “Pradeep Goyal vs. UOI” [2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT] has quashed the order of PCIT on the ground of non-mentioning of DIN in the said order.
In view of the discussion made above and in the light of the decisions of the Coordinate Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of “Tata Medical Centre Trust” [2022 (7) TMI 1334 - ITAT KOLKATA] and “Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO” [2022 (11) TMI 1348 - ITAT KOLKATA] the impugned order of ld. CIT(Exemption) is, hereby, quashed.
Since, we have quashed the impugned revision order on the aforesaid legal ground.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1377 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
Validity of admission of Section 7 application - amount (small balance amount) due and payable by the corporate debtor to SASF under the OTS, and, SASF wrongfully revoked the OTS and subsequently filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC - case of appellant is that Section 7 petition in the present case is mala-fide and filed only for the purpose of recovery and not for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor.
HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has only recorded the claim of the Applicant and has only unambiguously stated that it is not delving into the calculation of the amount stipulated by the Applicant in Section 7 application, and further the exact amount of financial debt is immaterial as long as the amount admitted by the corporate debtor is more than the minimum amount stipulated under Section 4(1) of the IBC i.e. Rs. 1 Lakh at the relevant time of filing Section 7 application.
In the light of detailed provisions in Chapter IV (Proof of Claims) in the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process For Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016, the invitation, submission and verification of claims of operational and financial creditors, workmen and employees and other creditors is quite clear. In so far as the facts included in the Section 7 application in Form 1 application is concerned, the financial creditor as to provide information about the debt which is due and payable and also the date and record of default. There is no requirement in the adjudication of Section 7 application to calculate and fix the exact amount of debt in default of repayment. It is only to be seen whether the amount in default is more than the minimum or threshold value that is prescribed in Section 4 (1) of the IBC.
The Appellant has not been able to make a case that the Adjudicating Authority had fixed a precise amount of the claim of Respondent No. 1-SASF and thereby caused adverse impact on the financial interest of Appellant - this Appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Suzlon Synthetics Limited, claiming to be adversely affected by the Impugned Order. It is a fact that the Section 7 admission order is directed at the corporate debtor - on looking at the reasons and grounds raised by the Appellant in this appeal, it does not become apparent as to why the Appellant had filed this appeal.
Appeal dismissed while imposing a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the Appellant which should be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 15 days of this order.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1376 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of order passed by MSME Council - Fee payable to CA Firms, for Special Audits directed u/s 142(2A) - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, and for the reasons which stand recorded in the order of the Court passed in [2023 (7) TMI 382 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the Court finds itself unable to sustain the impugned order passed by the Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council [“MSME Council”].Matter requires consideration.
Till the next date of listing, there shall be stay of all further proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - undue pecuniary gain to by selling the items/goods on quite exorbitant rates in connivance and with the criminal conspiracy hatched with Chief Medical Officers - HELD THAT:- Looking at the allegation against the accused-applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the satisfaction, as required under Section 45 of the Act, 2002, that the accused-applicant, prima facie, has not committed offence, is not made out. The provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. have limited scope to prevent humiliation of the applicant by having him so arrested that the accused-applicant is an innocent person and he has not, prima facie, committed the offence for which complaint and chargesheets have already been filed.
There is no ground to take a different view from the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, PMLA, Lucknow - anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1374 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dismissal of petition - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT:- The petitioners do not want to proceed with these writ petitions and considering such submission, all these writ petitions are dismissed for nonprosecution.
........
|
