The said chapter nowhere provides that method of accounting for the purpose of ascertaining net profit should be the only income from business alone and not from other sources. Section 29 provides how the income from profits and gains of business or profession should be computed and this has to be done as provided under Section 30 to 43D. By virtue of Section 5 of the said Act that total incomes of any previous years includes all income from whatever source derived. Thus for the purpose of Section 40(b)(v) read with Explanation there cannot be separate method of accounting for ascertaining net profit and/or book-profit.
In the present case, the learned Judge rightly observed that the conduct of the company was dishonest. There had been transactions galore running into crores. More than Rupees sixty-four lacs were admittedly paid by the company. Even then, the company initially denied the relationship, subsequently took a different stand in the affidavit that would make the position of the company vulnerable.
It appears that the entire statements and averments constitute culpable laches and negligence on the part of the departmental official. There is no whisper as to what steps have been taken against the negligent officials. The Supreme Court has cautioned not to give any undue and unlimited concession to the appellant, who happens to be a Government department. In a recent pronouncement the Supreme Court has stated that time has come to reexamine the aspect of extending latitude to the Government department. The Supreme Court has observed that in the era of modern technology there is no difficulty on the part of the department to take reasonably prompt action.
A company cannot, at the post-advertisement stage, disturb or unsettle the finality of a finding as to the indisputable nature of a debt rendered at the admission stage of a creditor’s winding up petition. Even though the decision at the admission stage is final as between the company and the petitioning-creditor, others connected with the company who come in after advertisements may question the finding and the Court may not feel constrained that it is bound by the finding.
In order to claim deduction the assessee has to prove by adducing cogent evidence that it was incurred on account of business activities of the company. It appears as rightly pointed out by the respondent that despite opportunity being given, it could not produce any materials that such foreign tour was undertaken in relation to the business of the company. Mere furnishing information and making of statement are not good enough to establish the case of foreign travel.
Most of Paras 32 to 34 of the impugned CLB judgment in the instant case appear to have been physically lifted – the copy and paste disease – from a previous decision of the same member of the CLB which was taken up on appeal before the Delhi High Court which set aside the judgment and order.
There is no doubt that the correspondence between the parties in April, 2009 gives the impression that the company admitted and acknowledged that the company owed money to the petitioner. Yet, on the basis of the mail exchanged at the relevant time, the exact quantum of the company’s indebtedness to the petitioner cannot be assessed.
This is an application for the winding up of Tantia Constructions Ltd. (hereinafter the company). It is made by a Malaysian company by the name of Road Builder (M) Sdn Bhd, (hereinafter the petitioning creditor). These two companies entered into a joint venture agreement on 14th July, 2003 for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. After sometime, the company pulled out of it. They entered into a different relationship. The petitioning creditor agreed, on 15th December, 2007, to sell to the company plant, machinery and vehicles at a total consideration of Rs. 2,75,73,614.41/-.
In the 1st week of October, 2009, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have infringed its trademark by using the word ‘Arnimax’ on its products coupled with the trade dress and thereby has infringed the registered trademark and passed off its products as that of the petitioner. Accordingly, C.S. 360 of 2009 was filed and an interim order passed on 19th February, 2010 restraining the respondent from dealing with, offering for sale, advertising, marketing or publicising the impugned trademark ‘Arnimax’. Such order was continued on 8th April, 2010 and direction given for filing affidavits. An affidavit has been filed and a No Objection Certificate dated 9th December, 2002 has been relied upon by the respondent. Such No Objection Certificate was given by one Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. No certificate of the petitioner has been produced. In fact on a comparison of the signature of the person who is the signatory to the certificate with the signature in the Indenture of Lease dated 25th March, 1988 the said signature will not tally. The licence given to Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. by the owners of the registered trademark did not include the registered trademark ‘Arnimax’. Therefore, neither Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. nor anyone deriving a right thereunder could have issued the No Objection Certificate. No document evidencing sale, registration or user has been produced by the respondent therefore the case of infringement made out subsists and the order dated 19th February, 2010 and subsequent orders passed be confirmed.
CIT Vs. S R M B Udyog Ltd. (Kokata High Court)- Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, effect of amalgamation is winding up of the transferor company. Moreover, from the terms of the amalgamation which have been accepted by this Hon’ble Court, it appears that whatever proceedings were pending or were sought to be initiated after the date of the order of amalgamation, were to to done against the transferee company. Under such circumstancs, we could gather from the facts that the appeal was preferred by SRMB Udyog Ltd. before the Commissioner of Income Tax after the order of amalgamation was passed; similarly the department preferred an appeal subsequently. It is settled law that no proceedings can be brought against a nonexistent person either natural or artificial.
