In the present case, the appellant clearly sought an operational service from the Proprietary Concern when it contracted with them for the supply of light fittings. Further, when the contract was terminated but the Proprietary Concern nonetheless encashed the cheque for advance payment, it gave rise to an operational debt in favor of the appellant, which now remains unpaid. Hence, the appellant is an operational creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC.
State of Manipur & Ors. Vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The main contention in the appeal is that the declaration of the Assam Act, 2004 as unconstitutional does not per se render the 2012 Act invalid. It was argued that Bimolangshu Roy was wrongly decided and should be held to be […]
DCIT Vs Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Facts-Assessment u/s 153C was challenged on the grounds that assessment order dated 31.3.2016 u/s 153C/143(3) was passed without dropping the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 8.9.2015 under section 153A of the Act and disposing off the objection filed by the assessee to initiation of assessment proceedings. Further, […]
The goods declared as scrap have been sold by the appellant to companies engaged in scrap management which have a certificate issued to them by the Principal Environment Commissioner, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, for procurement and recycling of scrap under the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. Further, the invoices through which these goods were sold to these companies also describe the good as scrap only.
The finding overlooks that no one would like to avail services of a stranger or an agent if the work, that is, transfer of KVP certificates, could be otherwise handled and done with ease. Further, no one would like to lose money to a stranger. Necessarily, we would accept that the appellants had remained in touch with Rukhsana but were given the impression that the exercise is complex and would take time. Further they had belief that the post office would take care of their interest, act in good faith and would not be negligent.
SBW Udyog Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Allahabad) Deduction allowed for belated payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI, which is deposited beyond the due date stipulated under the relevant statutes governing PF/ESI, but the same stood deposited before the due date for filing of return of income. Facts- The assessee filed its return of income u/s. […]
Karnataka HC: Ola Cabs face copyright infringement charges by Lahari Recording Company for displaying music videos in Ola Prime cabs. Legal analysis included.
Regulation 72(1) provides that an officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the Act of 1972 or as per Sub-regulation (2) whichever is higher. Thus, it is beyond doubt that an employee must receive gratuity whichever is more beneficial either under the Act of 1972 or under the Regulations framed by the bank. However, this is not the same thing as to suggest that an employee can choose computation of gratuity under one statute and seek benefits of other provisions under another statute. As we have noticed, the scheme of gratuity under the Act of 1972 and under the regulations framed by the bank are different.
Unsecured loan– It is seen that merely because the Lender Company had substantial funds through borrowings, AO suspected the Assessee to have created layers of intermediaries to bring in Unaccounted money, and on the basis of such suspicion, drew adverse conclusion against the genuineness of the Unsecured Loan and treated it as Unexplained merely on the basis of such suspicion.
Commercial Court shall have power to provide a new time period for filing written statement under section 15(4) of the Act, 2015 itself, independent of Section 148 CPC.
