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.
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.
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).
The submission of the counsel for the revenue that the Trust was not set up for charitable purposes and it was utilizing its income not for the said purpose cannot be examined at this stage as only objects of the Trust had to be considered by the Commissioner. The Trust was in nascent stage and was yet to work towards its objects.
Assessee filed Form No. 10 under rule 17 of the Rules at the time of filing revised returns in respect of each of the assessment years under consideration. Thus, evidently, the requirements of section 11(2) of the Act had been complied with before the completion of the assessments. Therefore, while completing the assessments for the assessment years under consideration, the Assessing Officer had the necessary information in respect of the claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act made by the assessee before him.
It is settled principle of law that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating the show-cause proceeding. A show-cause notice is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question can be treated as parts or accessories of computer system or peripherals. As per clarification by the Commissioner also printer is a part of computer system and peripherals. The printer cannot be operated without inkjet cartridges or toner cartridges and thus the said items can certainly be treated as accessories to the printer.
From statement of one of assessees, it is clear that in respect of 39.19 acres of land, the transaction is complete and the assessees have received full consideration from ‘N’ as per the MOU. Hence, the transaction in respect of 39.19 acres is completed and each of the assessees have got the income of Rs. 25,07,508 in the said transaction. Hence, the said amount has to be treated as income from the real estate and liable to be brought under tax.
