29/07/2020

Application rejected due to Demand notice was signed without proper authority – Accurate Engineering Group Vs. M/S Jekson Machinery Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad

On perusal of the records it is found that the instant petition is signed by one Mr. Nataraja L. on the basis of the authorisation issued at the meeting of the partners of the applicant company held on 28th September, 2019. It is observed that, in the aforesaid authorisation, at the bottom, date is written as 28.09.2016 which appears to be a typographical error. The demand notice dated 04″‘ September, 2019 issued by the applicant in form 3 (page 33) is signed by one Ms. Jyoti Swarup as authorised signatory and the applicant has not put on record any document authorising Ms. Jyoti Swarup to sign the demand notice. Thus, Ms. Jyoti Swarup has signed the demand notice without proper authority.

Under the facts and circumstances as discussed herein above, the Adjudicating Authority is of the considered view that the application so filed by the applicant is not maintainable and therefore stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Application rejected due to Demand notice was signed without proper authority – Accurate Engineering Group Vs. M/S Jekson Machinery Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Ahmedabad Read Post »

Setting up off losses under Income Tax Act, 1961 is subject to scrutiny by the Income Tax Department and IBC 2016 lays down that the Resolution Plan should be in compliance with the law laid down – Pradeep M.R Vs. Ravindra Beleyur Resolution Professional of Merchem Limited – NCLAT

NCLAT held that we have gone through the various submissions made by the Appellants and the Respondents. We also understand that the Resolution Plan have been implemented by 18.03.2019 and a lot of time has lapsed in getting final approval and landing into appeals before this Appellate Tribunal. The grey area in this case is that the setting up off losses under Income Tax Act, 1961 is subject to scrutiny by the Income Tax Department and IBC 2016 lays down that the Resolution Plan should be in compliance with the law laid down. Hence, there is a need for getting an affidavit from the Resolution Applicant that he will be successfully completing the Resolution Plan whether he gets this set off under Income Tax Act or not. Secondly the issue is payment of licence fee to the building owner where the CIRP has been carried out and business was running on a “going concern basis” for the period till CIRP was continued or they have handed over the building to the building owner whichever is earlier and the same is to be restricted to his Income Tax Returns so far filed. This costs needs to be included in CIRP costs.

Setting up off losses under Income Tax Act, 1961 is subject to scrutiny by the Income Tax Department and IBC 2016 lays down that the Resolution Plan should be in compliance with the law laid down – Pradeep M.R Vs. Ravindra Beleyur Resolution Professional of Merchem Limited – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top