There is no conflict between the statutory relief of winding up and of the contractual right to have disputes settled by arbitration. Once a bona fide defence is shown to exist, arbitration will be the efficacious and proper remedy. Where, however, the defence is mala fide and a moonshine, arbitrable disputes would not exist and the company judge would have the power to pass appropriate orders Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Co. (supra). Existence of an arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of this court to either entertain or to admit a petition for winding up.
Commercial vehicle is to include heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle but is not to include maxi-cab, motor-cab, tractor and road-roller. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration is whether Tippers, Vibrator and Vibrator Soil Compactor would be covered by the expression ‘commercial vehicle’ or such vehicles have to be regarded as plant and machinery to attract less percentage of depreciation. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal would not suffer from any legal infirmity because the Tippers are registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the 1988 Act’) as road transport vehicle as would be vibrator and vibrator soil compactor.
CIT v. Tyco Electronics Corpn. India (P.) Ltd. As deduction under section 10-A has to be excluded from the total income of the assessee, the question of unabsorbed business loss being set off against such profit and game of the undertaking would not arise.
The assessee, Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd, an Indian Company was engaged in marketing of pharmaceutical products. It was a subsidiary company of NOVA Nordisk, Singapore. One of the products (insulin in medically presentable form), was manufactured by M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (Torrent) and supplied to the assessee company. The raw material was supplied by a foreign company NOVA Nordisk, Denmark. Torrent pursuant to the contract, was required to sell entire output only to the assessee company in India.
Petitioner had filed the application for registration on 23rd September, 2006 after the 2002, Scheme had come to an end, as the scheme was applicable only upto 31 st March, 2006. The industrial park set up by them was not operational/functional by 31st March, 2006. It became operational on a subsequent date. The completion certificate for the said park issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation is dated 29th August, 2007. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim notification under the 2002, Scheme.
The non-availability or non-association of independent witness cannot be a ground for discharge or acquittal in all cases. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses could not be undermined at the stage of framing of charges. It is moreso when the prosecution has cited some panch witnesses to be examined in support of its case. The impugned order discharging the accused/respondents apparently suffers from illegality and has caused miscarriage of justice. At the stage of charge, what is to be seen by the Trial Court was laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments. Reference is made to the judgment in case State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018.
There is no reason and justification to hold that clause (iii) of the Explanation intents to reduce or restrict the indexed cost of acquisition’ to the period during which the assessee has held the property and not the period during which the property was held by the previous owner.
Besides this, we have to keep in mind the object and purpose of granting service tax exemption on handling of export cargo, which is only to reduce the cost of exporters to send goods for sale in international markets at competitive rates. In fact all kinds of incentives such as tax and duty exemptions are allowed for export cargo to make the Indian goods competitive in international markets.
CIT Vs. Jagat Novel Exhibitors Private Limited (Delhi HC)- Main contention of the Assessee was that the notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was not issued to the respondent company in the name of the principal officer but was issued to Jagat Novel Exhibitors and without the words “Private Limited” as a suffix. Therefore, the notice was vague as it could not be ascertained whether it was issued to an individual, a firm, an HUF, etc. The notice, therefore, was void ab initio and accordingly the assessment order was a nullity.
CIT vs. Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)- During the assessment year, the assessee returned an Income of Rs.2,25,04,588 from service charges. The assessee had a loss of Rs.02,23,32,127 in share trading. The assessee had a dividend income of Rs.4,79,325/. The assessee claimed that in computing the gross total income for the purpose of the explanation to Section 73, the income from service charges had to be adjusted against the loss in share trading.
