It is well settled that the proceedings of winding up is not a recovery proceeding. Once it is demonstrated that the debt is subject to a bonafide dispute, the court will not order for winding up. The principles in this regard are elucidated in Madhusudan Gordhandas (supra).
The Tribunal, upon detailed examination of the nature of relationship between the assessee and the transporter, came to the conclusion that this is not a case of sub-contract. The Tribunal noted that none of the responsibilities of the contractor vis-a-vis the execution of the work were fastened on the transporters.
In the present case, as stated hereinabove, admittedly original accused No. 2 was appointed as managing director of original accused No. 1-company and original accused No. 1-company had also the whole-time directors and the manager. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused only as a ordinary director.
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.
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.
Under section 12AA of the Act, the Commissioner has to satisfy himself about the objectives of the trust and the genuineness of its activities. For such purpose, he has the power to call for such documents or information from the trust as he think are necessary.
The view of the Tribunal that in any case the assessee could have encashed the unutilized credit in the CENVAT account and that therefore the same did not make any difference to the Department suffered from fallacy. Firstly, rule 5 of the Rules, 2004 permitted refund of CENVAT credit under certain circumstances which provides that such refund shall be allowed subject to such safeguards,
In our view, we do not find any substance for the alleged ulterior motive or collusion by Mr. Desai with the OL, since no material is produced to show that any undue benefits was to be derived by the OL. Be it noted that the appeal is not preferred by the OL, but is preferred by the applicant herein in capacity as Party-in-person against the order of the learned Company Judge.
Whether the dividend declared by the company after the effective date of amalgamation but before the date of sanction by the High Court would cease to be dividend declared by the company?
Section 529(1) provides for, ‘the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors……’. It does not classify the secured creditors on the basis of the first chargeholder or the second chargeholder or so on. Similarly, in proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 529
