In Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma [2008] 8 SCC 321 it was reiterated that sufficient cause should be understood in pragmatic and practical manner. The test is that the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction or negligence on part of the appellant.
Given the fact that the assessee had acted only as a broker and could not claim any ownership on the sum of Rs. 14.79 crores and that the receipt of the money was only for the purpose of taking demand drafts for the payment of the differential interest payable by Indian Bank and that the assessee had actually handed over the said money to the Bank,
The Board ought to have considered the date of filing of the Petition, as well as the admissions so given by the contesting Respondents, before rejecting the Company Petition in such a fashion on the ground of maintainability.
The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the view taken in Exts.P11 and P13 is illegal. Ext.P9 judgment has attained finality. In that judgment, it has been specifically found that Ext.P2 application was not pending. It was therefore that the petitioner sought restoration of Ext.P2.
Circular No. 777 dated 17th March 1999 issued by the CBDT makes it clear that such certificate cannot have retrospective effect. The reason put forth by the assessee that he had a bona fide belief, as for earlier financial years the Assessing Officer of the contractor allowed the assessee to credit or pay without deduction of tax at source did not find favour with the Tribunal on the ground that the Circular issued under Section 197 (1) of the Act cannot have retrospective effect.
In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on the dock and he also admitted his fault, though he tried to shift the blame to his employee whose whereabouts were never known. Even in his bail application he had confessed to his role in the alleged irregularities and illegalities.
The appellant may have a very good case on merits and would possibly be able to establish in an appropriate proceeding that the respondent have acted in a fraudulent manner and defrauded him to Rs. 2 crore. However, in proceedings for winding up the company, the Court cannot adjudicate upon a bona fide disputed debt. It is well settled principle of company law that wherever there is a bona fide disputed debt, the petition for winding up of a company is not appropriate remedy to enforce the debt. In the circumstances, no fault is found with the order of the Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is to be dismissed.
When a person has a dual capacity, as an individual as well as karta of HUF, and notice under section 148 is intended to be addressed to HUF, it is necessary to specifically mention that notice was/is being addressed to him in his capacity as karta of HUF.
We find that respondent-assessee is receiving royalty and fees for technical services rendered in India. In terms of Article 12 of DTAA, royalty and fees for technical services received in India by a person resident outside India are not liable to tax in India in excess of 10% of the gross amount received. On examination of the DTAA, we find that in terms of Article 2(3) thereof the trade tax paid in Germany is one of the taxes to which DTAA applies.
As far as the sale and lease transactions pertaining to BPL Systems and Products Limited is concerned, the Assessing Officer observed that there were discrepancy in the lease rentals paid by lessee and admitted by the assessee in its profits and loss account, which were not reconciled by the assessee. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation.
