A creditor can maintain a winding up petition if he complies with the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the said Act of 1956. In the present case, the respondent-Bank was admittedly a creditor of the company. The company did not dispute such relationship. The company did not dispute receipt of the notice, hence, the winding up petition was maintainable.
Gazette Notification Dt. 27th March, 2012 issued by Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section), Ministry of Finance on “Harmonised Master list of Infrastructure sub-sectors” and amended by Department of Economic Affairs from time to time by way of new notification.
It is for the AO when he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction under section92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was argued by Ld. DCIT (DR) Mr. Tarsem Lal that the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Surinder Mahajan, could not point out any specific mention in the statute.
The various clauses of the MOUs need to be examined in the light of the criteria laid down by the Courts to determine whether the doctors attached to the appellant hospital are employees of the hospital. The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine whether a particular relationship amounts to employer-employee relationship is the existence of a right of control in respect of the manner in which work is to be done by the person employed
M/s Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. is the petitioner in this writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by clarifying the legal position that services rendered in relation to the execution of a works contract in respect of Railways is not taxable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘the Act’ for short). I find no legal impediment to clarify the legal position.
It is a cardinal principle of construction that when a legislation confers power, its amplitude cannot be cut down by instructions or rules or regulations made by subordinate authorities. Instructions and Rules can only supplement but can never supplant or limit the width of the statutory powers. In this case, the AO – as is evident from a reading of the impugned order – has not applied his mind at all to the facts much less considered what are the circumstances which either justify the grant of relief or its refusal. Furthermore, even the petitioner does not appear to have been given any opportunity to make even a briefest submission in support of its case.
Assessee in its transfer pricing study to TPO stated that it has selected CUP method as the primary method in AL analysis. It was also stated that the rate charged to its AEs are same to the rates charged to independent third party who operate in the same geographical region availing similar services. We observe that assessee furnished details of the said working to the TPO.
Corpus donation could not be considered as general donation in AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, merely on the ground of its utilisation in AY 2008-09 for giving corpus donation to other charitable institutions. Further, as per instruction No. 1132/CBDT dated 05.01.1978, it has been clarified that the payment of a sum by one charitable trust to another for utilization by the donee trust towards its charitable objects is proper application of income for charitable purposes in the hands of the donor trust, and the donor trust will not loose exemption u/s 11.
Proviso of sub-section 4 to section 260 is an exception giving High Court a judicial discretion to frame additional substantial question of law during the course of hearing. The language used by the legislature in the proviso is quite clear and does not suffer from any ambiguity.
The ratio of the judgment in Beejay Engg. (P.) Ltd., In re [1983] 53 Comp. Cas. 918 (Delhi) as also as is evident from the definition of a director under section 2(13) no distinction has been made between a nominated director or any other director. Thus, the first argument propounded by the petitioner that the applicant was only a nominee director will not by itself be a ground to absolve the said person from the liability of complying with the direction contained in section 454(2).
