Mack Soft Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Quinn Logistics India Ltd. [CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 143 of 2017]
In this matter, the appellant did not dispute that it had taken debt and did not repay. It, however, took the plea that the amount so paid was time barred.
The NCLAT observed that there is a continuous cause of action as evident from the books of account of the appellant and hence the application under
section 7 of the Code cannot be held to be barred by limitation.
State Bank of India Vs. D. S. Rajender Kumar [CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 87 to 91/2018]
The AA vide an order dated 23 January, 2018, did not allow the financial creditors to proceed against the personal guarantors till the moratorium
period came to an end. While disposing of the appeal against the said order, the NCLAT reiterated its decision in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. V.
Ramakrishnan & Ors. It, however, made clear that order of moratorium would be applicable only to the proceedings against the CD and the
personal guarantor, if pending before any court of law/tribunal or authority.
The order of moratorium will not be applicable for filing application for triggering CIRP under sections 7, 9 or 10 of the Code against the guarantor
or the personal guarantor under section 60 (2). If CIRP has been initiated against the CD, the insolvency and bankruptcy process against the personal
guarantor can be filed under section 60 (2) before the same NCLT and not before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. & Ors. [IA No. 594 of 2018 in CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 188 of 2018]
It was held that-
(a) While scrutinizing the resolution plan under section 30 (2), the RP cannot hold or decide as to who is ineligible under section 29A. Neither
section 30 (2) nor any other provision in the Code confers such power on the RP to scrutinize the eligibility of Resolution Applicants.
(b) As per section 30 (2), the RP is required to examine whether resolution plan confirms the provisions as mentioned therein but he cannot
disclose it to any other person, including resolution applicant(s), who has submitted the resolution plan. The resolution plan submitted by one
or other resolution applicant being confidential cannot be disclosed to any competitor Resolution Applicant nor any opinion can be taken or
objection can be called for from other resolution applicants with regard to one or other resolution plan.
(c) The RP is not only required to give notice of the meeting to the members of CoC, but also to the members of suspended Board of
Directors or partners of the corporate person, as the case may be. The OCs or their representatives are also to be informed to attend the
meeting of CoC, if the amount of the aggregate dues is not less than ten percent of the debt.
(d) The CoC, while approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan, should follow transparent procedure. It should record the reason in
brief while approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan. The members of suspended Board of Directors or its partners, OCs or
their representatives and resolution applicant(s) are not mere spectators. They may express their views in the meetings of the CoC.
Their views should be recorded and taken into consideration by the CoC before approving or rejecting one or other resolution plan.
The resolution applicant(s) are entitled to be present when the resolution plans are opened and placed before the CoC as per section 30 (5). At this
stage, they may point out whether one or other resolution applicant is ineligible in terms of section 29A or not.
The provisions of General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) are contained in Chapter X-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The GAAR provisions shall be effective from assessment year 2018-19 onwards,
i.e. financial year 2017-18 onwards. CBDT Released 16 FAQ’s on GAAR.
1. Research and development services provider could not be compared to a company
2. Where segmental data relating to research operation of a company was not available, it could not be compared with assessee rendering research and development service.
3. Addition made by Assessing Officer on basis of order of TPO on account of interest on delay in realisation of dues from associate enterprises, was uncalled for as assessee had no interest liability and there was no interest cost to assessee
January 4, 2017[2017] 77 taxmann.com 6 (Bangalore – Trib.)
January 4, 2017[2017] 77 taxmann.com 7 (Pune – Trib.)
January 5, 2017[2017] 77 taxmann.com 17 (Chennai – Trib.)
According to PBI 24/08/2016
India, today took another major step in the fight against tax evasion, “round tripping” and “base erosion/profit shifting”. The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its approval for signing of an Agreement and the Protocol between the India and Cyprus for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income.
This step follows the recent amendment of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Mauritius. As in the case of Mauritius, the treaty with Cyprus had provided for residence-based taxation of capital gains. With the revision of the treaty now approved by the Cabinet, capital gains will be taxed in India for entities resident in Cyprus, subject to double tax relief.
In other words, India will have the right to tax capital gains arising in India. The provisions in the earlier treaty for residence-based taxation were leading to distortion of financial and real investment flows by artificial diversion of various investments from their true countries of origin, for the sake of avoiding tax. As in the case of Mauritius, this amendment will deter such activities. Negotiations with Singapore are also underway for similar changes.