Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1956 1956 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 45 of 45 Records

• 1956 (3) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF PEPSU
  

  Kinds of share capital - Two kinds of share capital, Accounts –Annual accounts and balance sheet, Director number of, Appointment of directors and proportion of those who are to retire by rotation , Resignation of director, Directors – Power of, Oppression and mismanagement –Power of Tribunal on application under sections 397 and 398, Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  ---

• 1956 (3) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Amendment to petition

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... if he so desires, to drop allegations made in the original petition, and also he must be permitted to draw up the petition in his own way, and as long as his amended petition as a whole does not depart too far from the grounds contained in the original petition, it is immaterial if he amplifies those grounds to some extent. To what extent such amplification is permissible is a matter which will have to be decided according to the circumstances of each case in which the point arises. Some consideration of this aspect of the matter ought obviously to be given at the time when the substitution is permitted and the conditions on which it is to be permitted are decided. In the present case I do not consider that the amended petition differs in any essential matter from the original petition except for the dropping of certain personal allegations made by the original petitioner. I therefore do not see sufficient reason why the amended petition cannot be proceeded with as it stands.

  ---

• 1956 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of ₹ 26,000 received by the assessee from Jupiter Pictures Ltd. is a revenue receipt assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act ?

  Held that:- Reference made to section 10(5-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and urged that the language of that sub-section impliedly indicated that the sum of ₹ 26,000 (rupees twenty-six thousand) was a capital receipt id unacceptable as that sub-section was obviously introduced to prevent the abuse of managing agency agreements being terminated on payment of huge compensation and to nullify the application of the decision in Shaw Wallace's case to such cases. But that sub-section does not necessarily imply that if that sub-section were not there the kind of payment referred to therein would have been treated as capital receipt in all cases. The referred question should in our opinion have been answered in the affirmative. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1956 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether sub-section (7-A) of section 5 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the said order of transfer made thereunder are unconstitutional in that they infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner by articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution?

  Held that:- Its partners or principal officers will have to be away from the head office for a considerable period neglecting the main business of the firm. There may be no suitable place where they can put up during that period. There will certainly be extra expenditure to be incurred by it by way of railway fare, freight and hotel expenses. Therefore the reality of the discrimination cannot be gainsaid. In the circumstances this substantial discrimination has been inflicted on the petitioner by an executive fiat which is not founded on any law and no question of reasonable classification for purposes of legislation can arise. Here "the State" which includes its Income-tax Department has by an illegal order denied to the petitioner, as compared with other bidi merchants who are similarly situate, equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and the petitioner can legitimately complain of an infraction of his fundamental right under article 14 of the Constitution.

  In the view we have taken on the construction of sub-section (7A) of section 5 and the petitioner's rights under article 14, it is not necessary for us, on this occasion, to express any opinion on the contention that the inconvenience and harassment referred to above constitute an imposition of such an interference as amounts to an unwarranted restriction on the petitioner's rights under article 19(1)(g) or a violation of his rights under article 31. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1956 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether a sum of ₹ 1,23,719 paid by the respondent as commission to its managing agents on account of profits of its Karachi branch can be allowed as deduction against the Indian profits?

  Held that:- The appropriation, therefore, of ₹ 1,23,719 as proportionate commission in respect of the profits of ₹ 6,18,599 earned at Karachi in the profit and loss statement for that branch is not in accordance either with the terms of the managing agency agreement, or with the rights of the respondent under the law. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

123