Kroner Investments Limited
PFA
PFA
Additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of law if the Revenue has not made any enquires to find out whether the AIR information was correct or not
It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of law. If the assessee denies that it is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative
Parliament passes Cos. Amendment Bill; CCI probes airfare surge; Tatas to double patent base in 3-years
Parliament passes Cos. Amendment Bill; CCI probes airfare surge; Tatas to double patent base in 3-years
Dear Patrons,
Vicarious liability of company's directors with respect to dishonour of cheque, due to insufficiency of funds in company's bank account, is not a new issue. But the Supreme Court has definitely given it a new spin. Last week, apex court delivered an important judgment on this issue [LSI-475-SC-2015-(NDEL)]. While overruling Madras High Court ruling in B. Raman & Ors. vs. M/s. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd, the Court held that the notice u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act') to a company was sufficient and separate notices to directors were not required.
Mr. Apurv Sardeshmukh (Partner, Legasis Partners, Advocates & Solicitors), in this article, analyses both Madras HC and apex court rulings. He points out that dishonouring a cheque is a criminal office under NI Act. Underlining the importance of notice under Section 138 of NI Act, he states that, "The starting point of initiating a legal action under section 138 starts with the issuance of notice to the person against who legal action has to be taken."
Interpreting SC decision [LSI-475-SC-2015-(NDEL)], the author concludes that, "the Supreme Court has done away with the requirement of issuing separate notices to the Directors.. and a single notice of demand.. be considered to have been issued to the Directors as well and the liability of Directors can arise on the basis of such notices."
Click here to read his article titled – "SC puts directors 'on notice' over cheque dishonouring"
Best Regards,
LSI Team
Rejects 'adventurism', upholds NCLT/NCLAT validity; However strikes down selection committee constitution
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court partly allows Madras Bar Association's writ, relies on co-ordinate bench 2010 ruling (wherein National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ('NCLAT') constitution provisions under 1956 Act were challenged) to uphold constitutionality of NCLT/NCLAT, however, strikes down validity of Technical Member appointment & Selection Committee constitution; Rejects Sr. Advocate Arvind Datar's contention that 2010 judgment did not deal with constitution of NCLAT, observes that, "the Constitution Bench categorically dealt with the Constitutional validity of NCLT and NCLAT under the caption "Whether the constitution of NCLT and NCLAT under Parts 1B & 1C of Companies Act are valid""; Further dismisses petitioner's reliance on SC's National Tax Tribunal (NTT) judgment to strike down NCLAT constitution provisions, remarks, "This adventurism on the part of the petitioner is totally unfounded..Judgment in the case of 2010 judgment is of a Constitution Bench and that judgment of a co-ordinate Bench binds this Bench as well"; Differentiates NTT ruling from NCLT/NCLAT, holds NTT was a matter where power of judicial review exercised by HC was vested in NTT which was sought to be unconstitutional, however, "NCLT is the first forum in the hierarchy of quasi-judicial fora set up in the Act, 2013. The NCLT, thus, would not only deal with question of law in a given case coming before it but would be called upon to thrash out the factual disputes/aspects as well"; With regard to NCLAT points out that NCLAT is the first appellate forum provided under the Act, 2013 to examine validity of NCLT orders on factual as well as legal issues; Upholding the constitutionality observes that, "a common feature/practice to provide one appellate forum wherever an enactment is a complete Code for providing judicial remedies"; On the issue of constitutionality of provisions for appointment of technical members to NCLT/NCLAT, relies on 2010 judgement to hold them as invalid, observes that only officers holding ranks of Secretaries or Additional Secretaries alone can be considered for appointment as Technical members; Directs Govt to set right the defects in such provisions which state that persons holding post of Joint Secretary / equivalent post in Central / State Govt or member of Indian Company Law Service could be appointed as Technical Member; With regard to validity of constitution of Selection Committee for selecting the Members of NCLT and NCLAT, holds it to be invalid, as held in 2010 judgement that instead of 5 members Selection Committee, it should be 4 members ( 2 from administrative branch + 2 from judiciary) Selection Committee; States that out of the five Members, three were from administrative branch/bureaucracy as against two from judiciary resulting in predominance of administrative branch, which is unwarranted:SC
The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Amitava Roy.
Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar alongwith Advocates Nikhil Nayyar, Dhananjay Baijal and N. Sai Vinod argued on behalf of the petitioner, while ASG P.S. Patwalia, ASG Pinky Anand and Senior Advocate K. Radhakrishna represented the respondent.
See How the C V C Working. It seems that CVC again requires C V C ??!!!
The Complaint was lodged for giving Gift of Rs 1 Crore Neclace to one member of P A C , Member of Parliament , Public Accounts Committee, by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Tax Free from Income Tax !!!!
Dear Sir/Madam,
Your Complaint No. 6674/2015/Vigilance 6 dated 30/03/2015 has been sent to CVO MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS for Necessary Action.
Please check the status of your complaint at https://portal.cvc.gov.in/. In the following manner:
1) Enter Complaint Acknowledgement number.
2) Click Submit
Your Complaint No. 6674/2015/Vigilance 6 dated 30/03/2015 has been sent to CVO MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS for Necessary Action.
Please check the status of your complaint at https://portal.cvc.gov.in/. In the following manner:
1) Enter Complaint Acknowledgement number.
2) Click Submit
Novarties denied anti-diabetes patent; Retail chains oppose FDI in e-commerce; New Insider Trading Regulations take effect
Novarties denied anti-diabetes patent; Retail chains oppose FDI in e-commerce; New Insider Trading Regulations take effect
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment