TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business. Further, the dispute between the Appellant Company with a third party cannot be a ground for non-filing of Balance Sheets or Annual Income Tax Returns - despite being in the business of real estate, the Appellant Company has failed to place or show any document relating to ownership of any fixed asset or project under development, which could justify the need of restoration of the name o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (RoC). 2. As per the averments, M/s. Subh Laxmi Colonizers Private Limited was incorporated as private company limited by shares on 28.04.2006 with CIN No. U70101DL2006PTC14847 and having its registered office at 106, Bahubali Enclave Vikas Marg Extension, New Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 3. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant that it has an ongoing dispute with the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (MVDA). Therefore, it could not file its Annual Returns, Financial Statements and Income Tax Returns with the statutory authorities. 6. It is further submitted by the Appellant that it received the order from the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 04.02.2016, wherein it was stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents placed on record by the Appellant, this Bench observes : (i) That the Balance Sheets placed on record by the Appellant shows a Revenue of Rs. 23,500 only during the Financial Year 2015-16 and 'Nil' revenues from the Financial Year 2016-17 to Financial Year 2018-19 from its operations. Financial Year Revenue From Operations (in Rs.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to place or show any document relating to ownership of any fixed asset or project under development, which could justify the need of restoration of the name of the Appellant Company in the Register of Companies. 13. In view of the above, this Bench is not inclined to interfere with the striking off action taken by the RoC against the Appellant Company under Section 248(5) of the Companies Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
