<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (1) TMI 913 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417448</link>
    <description>Amounts received by a company as advance towards sale of immovable property are excluded from the definition of &quot;deposit&quot; under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 when they are taken under an agreement or arrangement and adjusted against the property in accordance with that arrangement. The proviso deeming such advances to be deposits applies only where the amount becomes refundable because the company lacks the necessary approval or permission to deal with the property or service. On the facts, the company had acquired land, obtained conversion and development permissions, and entered written sale agreements; the advances were part of genuine property transactions and could not support penal action under Sections 73 and 76-A. Continuation of the prosecution was held to be an abuse of process and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:50:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 913 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417448</link>
      <description>Amounts received by a company as advance towards sale of immovable property are excluded from the definition of &quot;deposit&quot; under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 when they are taken under an agreement or arrangement and adjusted against the property in accordance with that arrangement. The proviso deeming such advances to be deposits applies only where the amount becomes refundable because the company lacks the necessary approval or permission to deal with the property or service. On the facts, the company had acquired land, obtained conversion and development permissions, and entered written sale agreements; the advances were part of genuine property transactions and could not support penal action under Sections 73 and 76-A. Continuation of the prosecution was held to be an abuse of process and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>