Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2005)63SCL51
1. Shri Jasvir Singh & Others.(petitioners) have filed two petitions under Sections 397/398 and Sections 111 and 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. Both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners have filed these petitions against M/s Olympian Textiles Processing Ltd. having its Regd. Office at E-190C, Phase VI, Focal Point Ludhiana. The respondent company is a public limited company incorporated on 2.2.1994 and registered with Registrar of Company, Punjab, Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh. The authorized share capital of the company is Rs. 1,50,00,000 divided into 15,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the company is Rs. 1,17,00,000 divided into 11,70,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each as fully paid up.3. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioners are shareholders of respondent NO. 1 company holding 1,56,810 equity shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid forming 13.41...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2007)136CompCas500
1. This petition has been filed under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) seeking to (a) quash the pending order of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the Respondent) for forfeiture of 31800 shares of the petitioners, make the shares fully paid and recover the calls from the transferor; (b) release full dividend in respect of 31800 shares to the petitioners from the date of transfer; and (c) order compensation/damage to the petitioners for 2. The undisputed facts of the case are: The Respondent Company floated a public issue of 2,96,17,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share to Foreign Institutional Investors and at a premium of Rs. 70/- per share to other categories in March, 1994, aggregating Rs. 2,42,85,94,000/-. The last date for payment of allotment money was 15.8.1994 and the last date for payment of call money was 15.9.1994. After the close of the last date for payment of call money the petitioners namely Neo Securities Ltd (involved ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. In this order I am considering Company Petition No. 75 of 2006 filed by Shri Raj Kumar Gutpa and Ors. under Sections 397, 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against DP.Gupta and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. alleging reducing of petitioners into minority in shareholding and in management of the affairs of the company; non-payment of salary and perquisites to petitioner No. 1 for about last two years; vacating/surrendering of the premises of the respondent company without consulting the petitioner. M/s D.P. Gupta and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (R-3) having its registered office at 1/9-B Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-2 was incorporated on 28.3.1978. The authorized share capital of the Respondent Company is Rs. 20,00,000/- divided into 15,000/- equity shares of Rs. 100/- each and 5,000 4% preference shares of Rs. 100 each. The main objects of the company are to buy, sell, import, export, manufacture, manipulate, treat, prepare and deal in sanitary goods, sanitary wares, eart...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1992)73CompCas562
1. There are 26 appeals filed by the petitioners against Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "TISCO") under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellants belong to three groups. Sixteen appeals, i.e., Nos. 2, 3, 6, 11 to 23 of 1989, have been filed by the Shah group involving 40 transfer deeds, three appeals, Nos. 5, 30 and 31 of 1989, have been filed by the Nagda group involving nine transfer deeds and six appeals, Nos. 7 of 1989 and 36 to 40 of 1990 have been filed by the Goradia group involving forty transfer deeds. As most of the relevant facts are common in respect of all appeals and there are common legal issues involved, it was agreed by the appellants and the respondent-company that all the appeals may be heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. The appellants herein had lodged transfer deeds with the respondent-company during the months of February to April, 1989. The Tata Share Registry Ltd., the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)38ITD193(Delhi)
1. Appellant company is a public sector company running several steel plants. The company was registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24th January, 1973. It started functioning as holding company with some subsidiary companies in 1978 under the Public Sector Iron and Steel Companies (Restructuring) and Miscellaneous Act, 1978. As a consequence, appellant company became operating company with effect from 1-5-1978 and following subsidiaries were dissolved : As per Clause 6 of the Restructuring Act of 1978, the accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation if any of the dissolved companies was deemed to be loss or as the case may be, depreciation of the integral company. From 1960-61 onwards the dissolved companies had suffered losses. Appellant filed a return for the year in appeal, i.e., 1989 declaring loss of Rs. l',67,00,789.21. Assessing Officer computed the income at Rs. 16,732 lakhs. However, after setting off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation, the income was computed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (1991)38ITD359(Chd.)
The Revenue appeals and the following substantive ground has been raised before the ITAT :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT (A) has erred in reducing the book profits of Rs. 29,600 to 'nil'.2. Qua the above issue, the narration in the assessment order is to the following effect:-Income under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act - Rs.BF Dep. for assessment year 1985-86 1,59,956BF Business loss for earlier assessment year 55,830Income for assessment year 1986-87 1,42,725Less - Business loss adjusted 55,830 ________now adjusted 86,895 ________Unabsorbed depreciation for assessment 1,59,956year 1985-86Now carried forward 86,895 ________Income as declared 1,10,485Less - BF unabsorbed dep. of assessment 73,061year 1985-86Net income for assessment year 1987-88 37,424Therefore, no depreciation or business loss is tobe adjusted against the income of assessment year 1988-89.3. Before the Id first appellate authority, the assessee has taken the stand :- (a) that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1994)49ITD39(Mad.)
1. This appeal relates to the application of the provisions of Section 115J in determining the assessable income of the assessee.2. The assessee is a company wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and carrying on business in the manufacture of cement and asbestos. For the assessment year 1988-89, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1988, the assessee filed a return showing nil income. The Assessing Officer accepted the fact that the total income computed in accordance with the IT Act came to nil. However, he found that the profit shown in the profit & loss account came to Rs. 2,95,14,482. Adding back the provision for bad and doubtful debts and another provision of Rs. 30,71,224 for shortfall in levy quota, he determined the book profit at Rs. 3,32,23,376. He then noted that under Section 115J, the brought forward business loss or brought forward depreciation, whichever is less, is to be deducted and since the brought forward business loss was nil, no deduction was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
FORM NO.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Honble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And Honble Justice Asha Arora GA No.3094 of 2012 ITA No.7 of 2004 CIT, CENTRAL I, KOLKATA Versus BINANI CEMENT LTD.Advocate for the Appellant Advocate for the Respondent Mr.R.N. Bandopadhyay, Adv.Mr.Aniket Mitra, Adv.Mr.J.D.Mistri, Sr.Adv.Mr.Madhur Agarwal, Adv.Mr.Moloy Dhar, Adv.Mr.Ajoy Kr. Dey, Adv.Hearing concluded on: February 5, 2016. Judgment delivered on : 04/03/2016. GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. This is an appeal u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred by the Revenue against a judgement and order dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) B Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.239/KOL/2011 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. This Court by an order dated 25th March, 2014 had disposed of this appeal by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
1. These cross-appeals filed by the assesses and the Revenue are directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 12th Aug., 1993, for asst. yr. 1990-91. Since both the appeals are heard together these are being disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. First we take up the assessee's appeal ITA No. 4112/Ahd. l993. Brief facts relevant for the points in issue may be set out at the outset.The assessee-company has been engaged during the assessment year under reference in the business of manufacture of computer diskettes and chemicals as also lease and hire income. During the year the computer diskettes manufacturing unit viz., Pinsel has been sold to M/s Vidarbha Iron & Steel Corpn. Ltd. (VISCO for short). The question which arises for our consideration is the computation of capital gains under Section 50 of the IT Act, 1961.Agreement dt. 17th April, 1989, as well as supplementary agreement dt.5th Dec., 1989, containing the particulars of various assets and liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
1. The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the grounds that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in upholding: (2) Action of assessing officer in making adjustment of Rs. 1,14,24,000 in respect of provision for deferred taxation while computing the book profit for the purpose of Section 115 JB.2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the lower authorities, material available on record and the decision relied upon by them.3. The relevant facts are that for assessment year 2002-03 the assessee-company had filed its return of income in Form No. 1 at Rs. 71,96,700 computed in the normal course as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the tax payable on the total income for the relevant previous year was less than 71/2 per cent of the book profit, computation of tax was made as per provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The book profit so computed was Rs. 4,51,95,130. The assessing officer in the order under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!