NISCHINTAPUR TEA CO. LTD Versus SUBRATA SEN & ORS ( Calcutta High Court) – An application under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was filed in this court way back in 1985. It was numbered as C.P. No. 252 of 1985. It is still pending. The petitioner in that application was one Amita Sen, who has since died. In her place, her three sons Subrata, Ranjan and Sanjay are now substituted as petitioners being petitioner nos. 1.(a), (b) and (c).Two applications were heard by me for several days. They were most seriously contested. One of them (C.A. No. 686 of 2010) was an application by the company for dismissal of the Section 397, 398 application. One Ajit Kumar Agarwal, opposed this application as an intervenor. It was strenuously argued on his behalf that the company should not be granted the prayers. Neither, the petitioners in the Section 397, 398 application should be allowed to withdraw from the application. He made an application (C.A. No. 721 of 2010)for dismissal of C.A. 686 of 2010.
De Nora India Limited Versus Union Of India And Ors (Delhi HC) The challenge in this writ petition by De Nora India Limited („DNIL‟) [formerly known as Titanor Components Limited („TCL‟)] is to an order dated 12th August 2010 passed by the Department of Commerce („DOC‟) (Supply Division) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry („MOCI‟), Government of India partly allowing the appeal of DNIL and upholding the order dated 22nd February 2010 by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals („DGS&D‟) banning DNIL from dealing with all the departments/ministries/offices of the Government of India but reducing the period of ban from five years to a period of one year operative from 22nd February 2010 and in relation only to tender notices of the DGS&D.
Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs G. C. Jain and another (Supreme Court of India)- Respondents imported 14 consignments of Butyl Acrylate Monomer (BAM) and cleared the same against advanced licenses by availing the benefit of customs notification nos. 203/92-Cus. and 79/95-Cus., without payment of duty – Revenue issued show cause notice to the respondents proposing confirmation of demand of duty, as also confiscation of the imported product and imposition of personal penalties alleging that impugned product imported by the respondents was defined organic chemical and was not an adhesive and exemption had been wrongly claimed by the respondents
High Court was justified in refusing to expand the scope of the reference so as to include the silver weighing 1713.807 kgs. which was confiscated u/s. 111(d) of the Act while hearing the reference with regard to silver weighing 194.250 kgs. but confiscated under a different provision of law, namely, u/s. 120(2) of the Act – Supreme Court.
SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ANR Company Applications No. 578-579/2011 have been filed by the Department of Telecommunication (in short ‘DOT’) under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for recall and stay of this Court’s order dated 5th February, 2010 by virtue of which amalgamation of Spice Communication Limited (for short ‘Spice’) with Idea Cellular Limited (for short ‘Idea’) was allowed.
UNITED BIOTECH PVT. LTD. Versus ORCHID CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ORS (Delhi HC) – The Petitioner UBPL states that it is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacturing and selling of pharmaceutical preparations including injections bearing the trade mark FORZID. UBPL claims that since 2002 it took steps to launch CEFTAZIDIME injections in the market under the trade mark FORZID. It entered into a licence agreement with M/s. Oscar Remedies Pvt. Ltd. („ORPL‟), Haryana for manufacturing FORZID injections. UBPL made an application for registration of the said trade mark under No. 1144258 dated 18th October 2002 in Class 5. The said mark was advertised in Journal Mega dated 25th November 2003. The registration was granted unopposed. The sales figures of UBPL‟s products under the trade mark FORZID for the years 2002-03 till 2006-07 have been set out in the writ petition.
E2 Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO- Learned CIT(A) has passed a very detailed order in the assessment year 2002-03 and rightly came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. From the assessment order, we find that according to the AO, it is not a new undertaking for the purpose of exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. Factually, it is also correct that the undertaking was already engaged in exporting software before it became a STP unit. The STP was notified in March, 1993 but not in Software Technology Park. In the year 2001, a company was formed by conversion of the firm and it started production in STP unit after getting approval.
Sita Jain & Ors. v. ACIT & Anr. (ITAT Delhi) – We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the subsequent decision has upheld grant of exemption u/s 54B in a case where land was purchased in the joint name. The ITAT had discussed this issue in the case of Smt. Saraswati Swaminathan reported in 116 ITD 234 and has observed that the object of section 54EC is to utilize the sale proceed of long term capital gain in the purchase of specified bonds.
Atos Origin IT Services Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Director of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee who was tax resident of Singapore had entered into a hubbing agreement for providing data processing support to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) a non resident company engaged in the business of banking in India. Assessee receive amount from SCB India for use of disc space alongwith embedded software in the hardware of the assessee at its data centre in Singapore of the infrastructure of the assessee, whether CIT(A) was justified in treating the income earned by the assessee was of the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12(3) of DTAA and also within the meaning of clause (iii) of Explanation (2) below Sec.9(vi) of the Income tax Act. Held, No
Industrial Thermoplastics Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether the disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on interest payment by the assessee to a concern covered u/s 40A(2) though the assessee has explained that there is no taxable income of the corporation and the defects in Form 15H are curable and cannot be considered without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects. – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
