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:

  • Pr CIT vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) We have for a long time, taken into account that many of these are fresh entrants to the bar and in due course, would learn the standard expected of an Advocate. However, to our disappointment, many of them are refusing to learn. Therefore, the CBDT could consider holding of a…
  • 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…
  • 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. Dhariwal Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) In all these appeals, we find that the appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted by this Honourable Court on a substantial question of law. That has also been recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order and the same is also not disputed before us. We…
  • PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited (Bombay High Court) The expression “does not form part of the total income” in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure…
  • Alok Textile Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) We note that the prohibition in Second Proviso to Section 158BC(a) of the Act of filing a revised return of income before the Assessing Officer would not prohibit a Assessee from raising the additional claim before Appellate Authorities as held by this Court in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd.…

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…