Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High Court)

In Re Ashok Organic Industries (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

The Sick Inndustrial Companies Act is a complete code and during the pendency of a reference, an industrial company cannot apply to the High Court for sanctioning a scheme under ss. 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. The principles to deal with conflicts between two statutes is discussed in detail.

Related Posts:

  • PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd (Bombay High Court) In NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (supra), the Assessing Officer had made independent and detailed inquiry including survey of the investor companies. The field report revealed that the shareholders were either non-existent or lacked credit-worthiness. It is in these circumstances, Supreme Court held that the onus to establish identity…
  • PCIT vs. Khushbu Industries (Bombay High Court) The reopening proceedings under section 148 are bad as necessary sanction/approval had not been obtained in terms of section 151 of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal records that the sanction for issuing the impugned notice had been obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax when, in terms…
  • ITO vs. Ashok Jain (ITAT Surat) No doubt in the present case, the ld.AO has applied for such approval which was granted on 29.3.2017, but before grant of approval, the ld.AO has already issued notice on 28.3.2014 which is without any jurisdiction. He can issue notice only after getting approval. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly quashed…
  • Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Supreme Court) The property in dispute was mortgaged by BPIL to the Union Bank of India in 2000 and the DRT passed an order of recovery against the BPIL in 2002. The recovery certificate was issued immediately, pursuant to which an attachment order was passed prior to the date on which notice…
  • CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (Supreme Court) No doubt, there is a long delay in removing the objections, we are of the opinion that in a case like this the High Court should have condoned the delay in removing the office objections and heard the2matter on merits
  • M/s Vijay Industries vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Reading of Section 80HH along with Section 80A would clearly signify that such a deduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act. It is correctly pointed out by Division Bench in the reference order…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    (i) Amounts received by an assessee from the foreign holding company of his employer company on redemption of stock appreciation rights, being “fruits of employment” is chargeable to tax as “salaries” despite the absence of an employer-employee relationship (ii) there … Sumit Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special…
  3. Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    (i) The Amadeus system, by which subscribers in India are enabled to perform the functions of reservation and ticketing, represents a “business connection” because it extends to the Indian territory in the form of connectivity in India and generates income … Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)…
  4. Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) 

    (i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii) … Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) Read More »
  5. CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme Court) 

    S. 158BB has to be read with the relevant Finance Act and the surcharge prescribed therein is applicable to a block assessment. The Proviso to s. 113 of the Act, though inserted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from … CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta (Supreme…