News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
I-T - Secured creditors have precedence over all dues, payable to Central & State Governments as per provisions of SARFAESI Act and RD & BFI Act: HC

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, DEC 21, 2017: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether secured creditors have precedence over all the dues, payable to both Central Government and the State Government as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act and RD & BFI Act. And the HC verdict is YES.

Facts of the case

The assessee-bank is aggrieved by the notice issued by the Income Tax Department, for recovery of income tax, payable by the second respondent (Surana Corporation Ltd.), for the AY 2005-06 to 2013-14. The notice stated that, the second respondent was liable to pay income tax of Rs.69.81 Crores, for such AYs, and since certain monies of the second respondent were lying in the hands of the assessee, the Department had issued the notice u/s 226 (3) of the Act, to the assessee. The validity of the notice was challenged in a writ petition.

After hearing the parties, the High Court held that,

++ in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of The Indian Overseas Bank, the argument advanced by the assessee is accepted. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee is a secured creditor, and in such circumstances, they have precedence over all the dues, payable to the Central Government and the State Government.

(See 2017-TIOL-2623-HC-MAD-IT)

 


POST YOUR COMMENTS