abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Karnataka Karnataka PAN: AAACI4798L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No. 245/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 201920 Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Infosys Limited Circle 3(1)(1) Plot 44, Konappana Agrahara Room NO. 241, 2nd Floor Hosur Road, Konappana BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road Vs. Bangalore 560100 6th Block, Koramangala Karnataka Bangalore 560095 Karnataka PAN: AAACI4798L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Padam Chand Khincha CA Department by : Smt. Srinandini Das CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 ORDER PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These cross appeals are filed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short "Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023 24/1056786183(1) dated 05.10.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for the A.Y.201920. ITA No.881/Bang/2023 ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 2 of 34 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. General Ground 1.1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as CIT (A) for short) has erred in passing the order under section 250 in the manner passed by him. The order so passed to the extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Adjustment of loss and turnover (export turnover & total turnover) of loss making 10AA unit with the profit making 10AA units: 2.1. The learned NFAC has erred in adjusting the loss and turnover of 10AA unit (Hubballi) amounting to Rs 4,18,33,747 and Rs.17,94,717 respectively from the profit & turnover of 10AA100% eligible units while computing deduction under section 10AA without specifying any reason in the show cause notice and order and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the Explanation to below subsection 1 of section 10AA without appreciating that the said Explanation is applicable only at the stage of allowing deduction under section 10AA from the total income and it is not applicable at the stage of computation of deduction under section 10AA in respect of profits of each SEZ unit. 2.3. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the losses and turnover of the loss making 10AA unit should not be adjusted with the profit making 10AA eligible units for the claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act. 3. Ground relating to disallowance of deduction under section 10AA: 3.1. The learned NAC and the CIT(A) has erred in reducing the following incomes from profits of the business of SEZ units in computing deduction under section 10AA for the reason that the said incomes are not derived from the activity of software development and export. i) Interest on nonconvertible debentures (NCDs) amounting to Rs. 259,59,73,228 ii) Insurance claim received in respect of flood in Chennai during t
Madras High Court M/S. M.M.Educational And Charitable ... vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 31 October, 2023 W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 DATED : 31.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 13736 of 2021 M/s. M.M.Educational and Charitable Trust, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Trustee, M.Ramki, NH44, Thottilovanpatti, Nalli Post, Sathur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu – 626 205. … Petitioner vs 1. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Rep. by its Chairman, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2. M/s. Corporate Concepts Infra Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its K.Durai Kandasamy, Flat No. 18A, Vese Kay Manoor, Door No. 8/28, Gopalakrishna Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 2050, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 made in MSEFC/CR/115/2019 passed by the First Respondent and quash the same and to direct the First Respondent to refer the claims of the Second Respondent respectively, to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/9 W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 (3) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006. For Petitioner : Mr. V.R.Kamalanathan For Respondents : Mr. S.Yashwath (for R1) Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. V.R.Kamalanathan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.Yashwath, Learned Counsel for the First Respondent and Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CR/115/2019 before the First Respondent under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming the principal amount of Rs. 15,68,300/ from the Petitioner towards value of goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 05.10.2020 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to that sum together with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P. No. 12936 of 2021 compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. In response to the contentions raised by the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to only resort to filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A & C Act' for short) to have it set aside as an arbitral award, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Vijeta Construction vs M/s. Indus Smelters Ltd. (Order dated 23.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2021), where after
Delhi High Court Sachin Kumar Aggarwal vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 12 November, 2024 * Date of decision: 12th NOVEMBER, 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: + CRL.M.C. 6489/2022 & CRL.M.A. 25263/2022 SACHIN KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal and Ms. Chandni Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner, who is the complainant and informant in FIR No.201/2022 registered at PS Tilak Nagar for offences under Sections 420/120B IPC, has approached this Court for setting aside the Order dated 05.11.2022 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, in Criminal Case No.8088/2022, rejecting the request of the Petitioner to lead oral arguments at the stage of arguments on charge. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has held that the role of the victim is only to assist the prosecution and cannot be enlarged to permit addressing of oral arguments. 2. The short question which arises for consideration in the present Petition is as to whether the Petitioner herein should have been permitted to lead oral arguments at the stage of arguments on charge or not and the impugned Order be set aside and remanded back to the Court to permit the Petitioner to lead oral arguments. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:18.11.2024 19:42:23 CRL.M.C. 6489/2022 Page 1 of 17 present petition are that: a. On 24.07.2022, the Petitioner herein lodged an FIR bearing No.201/2022 registered under Section 420/120B IPC, PS Tilak Nagar. The gist of the complaint is that the Petitioner and one more person were approached by one Mr. Sudhir Arora S/o Desh Raj Arora, stating that a Property bearing C21, Mukhram Park, New Delhi was available for sale. It is stated that the Petitioner was informed that the property was in a dilapidated condition and it has to be demolished and thereafter, new construction could be carried out. It is stated that the complainants were informed that Mrs. Varsha Gulati was the owner of the property and negotiations were held and meetings were attended by the accused namely; Sarita Gulati, Pooja Gulati, Devender Gulati & Sanjay Gulati. It is further stated that the sale consideration amount was arrived at Rs.70,00,000/. It is stated that the entire sale consideration amount was paid through RTGS/cheque on following dates: "(Payments made by Sachin Aggarwal: Total Amount: Rs. 34,73,750/) i. Rs. 5 Lakhs Through RTGS dated 03/09/2020 ii. Rs. 5 Lakhs through RTGS dated 04/09/2020 iii. Rs. 2 Lakhs th
We make it clear at the outset that there is no dispute about the nondeduction of TDS on the above payments. The assessee is fair enough to this effect. It files before us a copy of lists of payees details their PAN, total bill and TDS details during the course of hearing. Learned counsel quotes u/s. 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso stipulating non application of impugned statutory provision in case of the payees concerned having assessed to tax not making it as the assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi high court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Del) holds that sec. 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 applies with retrospective effect being curative in nature. We draw support therefrom and restore the instant first issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the payees in issue as to whether they have duly recorded payments in issue as income followed by assessment thereof as per law as stipulated in sec. 40(a)(ia) 2nd proviso r.w.s. 201(1) 1st proviso of the Act. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary details within three effective opportunities of hearing before the Assessing Officer. This first substantive ground is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms. 3. Next comes assessee's second substantive ground seeking to delete second disallowance of interest payment amounting to ₹13,42,902/ paid to M/s Indian Oil Co. Ltd without deducting TDS. There is no issue herein as well that assessee has not deducted any TDS regarding the impugned interest payment. Hon'ble Delhi high court's judgment in CIT vs. Trans Bharat Aviation (P) Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 671 (Del) has upheld the tribunal's decision presuming that if the payee / deductee is a Government of India undertaking, it cannot be presumed to have not paid tax on the receipts in issue. Learned Departmental Representative is fair enough in not disputing the fact that deducteee herein M/s Indian Oil Co. Ltd. is a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking. We draw support from the above legal position and delete the impugned disallowance / addition in principle. We therefore conclude that assessee's liability to pay interest is only upto the date of filing of return at its PSU/payee's behest as per the said case law. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed ITA No.2183/Kol/2017 A.Y. 201314 Zenith Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cir27, Haldia Page 3 to furnish afresh computation in these letters. This second substantive ground is taken as partly accepted accordingly. 4. Lastly comes to assessee's third substantive ground that CIT(A) has erred in not deleting proportionate interest disallowance of ₹69,20,652/ and advance given. We are informed that the Assessing Officer has not given any effect to the CIT(A)'s direction in this regard in consequential computation. We accordingly d
Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital West of T.V Tower, Gandhi Nagar, Kankarbagh Patna, Bihar 800020 ......Defendant Date of filing of suit : 25.11.2020 Date of Argument : 10.05.2024 Date of Judgment : 18.05.2024 JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs.12,91,630/ ( Rs Twelve Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty only) alongwith pendente lite and future M/S Unicorn Denmart Ltd. Date of judgment 18.05.2024 (Page 1 of 47 ) vs Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital interest @ 25% p.a filed by the plaintiff M/s Unicorn Denmart Limited against the defendant Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that plaintiff M/s Unicorn Denmart Limited ( hereinafter after referred to as " plaintiff company") is incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 3, Local Shopping Center, MOR Land, Near J Block DDA Market, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060; plaintiff company is engaged in the business of import, marketing, distribution, supply and servicing of dental equipments and having good reputation with his pan India clients. 3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff company through Mr. Gaurav Gogia, Manager, Accounts & Finance, who has been duly authorised vide Board Resolution dated 20.02.2020 to sign, verify and to institute the present suit. 4. The defendant Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital is stated to be a dental college and hospital which is being sponsored and M/S Unicorn Denmart Ltd. Date of judgment 18.05.2024 (Page 2 of 47 ) vs Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital managed by "Gautam International Pratisthan" a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and the day to day affairs of the defendant are being looked after by its Secretary. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff company that sometime in the year 2007, the defendant approached the plaintiff company for the purchase of dental equipments and had placed purchase orders to plaintiff company from time to time for supply of various dental equipments; plaintiff company supplied the said items to the full satisfaction of the defendant and as per the conditions of warranty, the plaintiff company also provided services to the defendant for the said dental equipments. 6. It is the further case of the plaintiff company that since the very beginning payments were made by the defendant on " on running account" basis and not on bill to bill basis; plaintiff company maintains a regular ledger of purchases made by the defendant; defendant stopped making the payments and last payment
JUDGEMENT 10.12.2024 1. Suit Decreed. 2. It is to be noted that in a suit of the present kind as one under Order 37 CPC, mere assertions cannot take place of proof and short of any cogent defence being put forth by the defendant, plaintiff version can indeed be taken to have inspired confidence, entitling it to the relief sought. 3. Pithily put, the case of the plaintiff is that it is registered under MSME and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and renting out of shuttering materials. It is averred that the defendant had approached the plaintiff in the year 2018 with regards renting out of shuttering materials / goods. Thereafter, plaintiff provided shuttering materials on rent against various bills / invoices raised in the name of the defendant from 01.05.2018 to 22.11.2019. The plaintiff is stated to have made several requests by asking the defendant to pay all its outstanding dues, but to no avail. Given such a background, legal notice dated 23.03.2021 is also stated to have been issued to the defendant, but things did not change. In such circumstances therefore, the present suit proceedings came to be filed under Order 37 CPC wherein which the following reliefs were sought: Civ Suit 693/2021 M/s Aay Pee Scaffoldings Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s New Tech Steel Products Pg. No. 2/8 a) Decree for a sum of Rs. 2,13,124/ alongwith interest from the date of refusal to pay the amount i.e. 01.05.2018 till realization in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. b) Cost of the suit. 4. The defendant was served and application seeking leave to defend came to be filed on 17.12.2022 wherein the defendant has denied all the claims of the plaintiff. It is stated therein that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under Order 37 CPC as the same is not based upon any promissory note / cheque / negotiable instrument, rather it is based upon ledger statement which does not fall under Order 37 CPC. Defendant has claimed in its WS that the plaintiff supplied defective / wrong material to it and therefore, it is not liable to pay for the same. Further, it is contended that invoices / bills raised by the plaintiff are not genuine and no balance sheet authenticated by the CA has been filed. It is further pointed out by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable as the transaction in question is more than Rs. 3 Lakhs. It is claimed that dues have already been cleared by the defendant and there is nothing pending towards the plaintiff as per the ledger maintained by it and hence, plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit just to extort money. The defendant denied receipt of legal notice as well. Based upon such averments, the defendant has sought leave to defend the present suit to establish its case. Civ Suit 693/2021 M/s Aay Pee Scaffoldings Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s New Tech Steel Products Pg. No. 3/8 5. Submissions heard. Record perused. 6. The principles governing grant or otherwise of leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC are no longer res integra. The test is of raising a triable issue, in which case, if the Court finds the same as worthy, the defendant may be allowed leave to lead evidence for the controversy in question to b
Madras High Court M/S.Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation vs M/S.Aero Plast Limited Through on 11 January, 2019 O.P.No.1019 of 2019 Reserved on Delivered on : 04.11.2025 10.11.2025 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Original Petition No.1019 of 2019 & A.No.9503 of 2019 M/s.Tamil Nadu Salt Corporation Ltd., LLA Building, 735, Anna Salai, Chennai2 rep.by its General Manager ...Petitioner Vs M/s.Aero Plast Limited through Sh.Abhay Goyal, Director ...Respondent PETITION under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the award dated 11.1.2019 made in Case No.646/18 No.TS/HMSEFC Case No.646/18/20360A passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and thereby dismiss the claim of the respondent herein. For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, SC for Mr.M.A.Abdul Wahab For Respondent : Mr.K.Seetharam 1/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm ) O.P.No.1019 of 2019 ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) challenging the award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 11.1.2019. 2. Heard both. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows : (i) The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for the supply of laminated roll and pouches for packing salt after the respondent became the successful bidder in the tender. After supply, the respondent made a claim for a sum of Rs.1,25,70,274.98 Ps from the petitioner. The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.2,29,65,875/ to the respondent. This was in view of the fact that the respondent was charging 30% interest. (ii) A dispute arose since the respondent made a claim for the alleged balance amount of Rs.1,20,70,274.98 Ps. But, the request made by the respondent did not yield any result. Hence, a reference was made under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development At, 2006 (for short, the MSMED Act) to the 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 03:39:15 pm ) O.P.No.1019 of 2019 Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short, the Council). However, none appeared before it on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was referred for arbitration before the sole Arbitrator. (iii) The sole Arbitrator issued notice to both parties. But, since the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the petitioner was set ex parte. On considering the claim made by the respondent and the materials relied upon by the respondent, the sole Arbitrator passed an award directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.39,90,222/ to the respondent along with interest. Aggrieved by that, the above original petition has been filed before this Court. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearin
Accused : 1. The President, Mr. Bibakannada Tripaty, M/s.Innovision Health Care Limited, Head Office, First Floor, I cross, I stage, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru 560 058. 2 C.C.6136/2018 2. Dr.Baidyanath Mishra, Chief Scientific Officer and Managing director and Authorize Signatory, M/s.Innovision Health Care Limited, Head Office, First Floor, I cross, I stage, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru 560 058. 3. Mr.Avinash, Authorize Signatory and Finance and account in charge, M/s.Innovision Health Care Limited, Head Office, First Floor, I cross, I stage, Peenya Industrial Estate, Bengaluru 560 058. { By Sri.Suresh.M Charamagal Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused No.1 to 3 are Acquitted Date of Order : 11042023 3 C.C.6136/2018 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused No.1 to 3 seeking to punish them for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as under; It is averred in the complaint that, the complainant was the employee working as a sale representative in the above said firm from 11.11.2016 at the rate of monthly remuneration of Rs.10,926/ along with DA of Rs.200/ per day. Since the date of appointment, the complainant was working very sincerely and obediently by attending the assignment of the job for a period of 10 calender months during the tenure of job he has drawn the said salary regularly from Axis Bank, company account transfer to his 4 C.C.6136/2018 savings bank account. It is further alleged that, on 22.08.2017, the accused person declaim to pay regular salary as fixed at the time of appointment, therefore the complainant constrained to resigned the job on 22.08.2017, his resignation was accepted on 01.09.2017 by the accused No.1 to 3. Further it is contended that, on the date of resignation by the complainant, the accused have issued two cheques for Rs.54,663/, the said amount is on the account of regular monthly salary outstanding from past few months, hence the accused on the full settlement of salary amount, the said outstanding amount have paid to the complainant by way of two Axis Bank cheques i.e., (1).Rs.25,000/ dated 02.09.2017 and (2).Rs.29,663/ dated 30.09.3017. It is further submitted that, the has encashed cheque dated 02.09.2017 for Rs.25,000/ and when another cheque bearing No.504081 for Rs.29,663/ dated 30.09.2017 has presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker on 30.09.2017, it has returned unpaid 5 C.C.6136/2018 with banker's endorsement dated 25.10.2017 with a shara as "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, on 23.11.2017, the complainant got issued demand notice to the accused persons, which were served upon them on 30.11.2017. Inspite of service of legal notice, the accused persons have failed to pay the cheque amount and also have failed to gave reply to his demand notice. On these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused persons for th