Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 90 of 90 Records
-
1961 (3) TMI 30
Payments of certain debts out of assets subject to floating charge in priority to claims under the charge and Charges – Registration of
-
1961 (3) TMI 29
Registrar to send copy of account to the auditor ... ... ... ... ..... e assets of the Company. It is to be seen that in England no rules have been framed relating to the procedure of audit at the instance of the Board of Trade. In the English Act sub-section (3) of section 249 merely provides that the Board of Trade shall cause the account to be audited. In the Companies Act of 1956, the language is stronger. Sub-section (3) of section 462 lays down that the court shall cause the account to be audited in such manner as it thinks fit. As I have come to the conclusion that rules 301 to 304 are of no effect so far as winding up by the court is concerned, I direct the Assistant Registrar (Company) to submit to me a report on the procedure to be adopted by this court in causing the account of the liquidator to be audited within three weeks from the date whereupon I propose to give administrative directions in the matter. ------------------------- An appeal No. 129 of 1961 against the above judgment was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.
-
1961 (3) TMI 8
Legality of the imposition of surcharge imposed on the income of the assessees under the Finance Acts of 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 challenged
Held that:- the definition in the General Clauses Act the term " Central Government " did not only denote the Governor-General or the Governor-General in Council as the case may be but also included for certain purposes the Provincial Governments acting within the scope of the authority given to them under section 124(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. This argument, in our opinion, is wholly fallacious.
Under section 124(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935, where powers and duties are conferred by section 124 upon a Province or a Federated State there shall be paid by the Federation to the Province or the Federated State such sum as may be agreed. Hence by the definitions given in the General Clauses Act no different concept of the words " purposes of the Central Government " was intended from what was intended by the use of the words " Federal purposes " in section 138(1)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 7
Whether the sums of ₹ 2,12,080 and ₹ 2,31,563 paid by the Government to the assessee in 1945 and 1946 respectively (exclusive of the sums paid specifically for building repairs) were revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee comprising any element of income ?
Whether the whole of the said sums less the expenses incurred by the assessee in tending the tea bushes constituted agricultural income in his hands exempt from tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?
Held that:- Though the payment in question was not made to fill a hole in the capital of the assessee, as in the Glenboig case, nor was it made to fill a hole in the profits of a going business as in the Shamsher Printing Press case, it cannot be treated as partaking the character of profits because business not having been done, no question of profits taxable under section 10 arose. The Privy Council described such a payment as a solatium. It is not necessary to give it a name ; it is sufficient to say that it was not profit of a business.
Once it is held that this was not profit at all, it is clear that rules 23 and 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules could not apply, and there was no question of apportioning the amount, as laid down in rule 24. The whole of the amount received by the assessee was not assessable. Appeal allowed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 6
Whether the assessee firm is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1955-56 ?
Held that:- In the present case an instrument of partnership was in existence but it did not specify the shares which was one of the requirements for registration and that condition was fulfilled by the deed of rectification dated September 17, 1955. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was the requisite instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners during the year of account. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in answering the question in the negative. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 5
Whether there are materials for the Tribunal to hold that the aforesaid sales tax payments of ₹ 30,221 were unreasonable and unnecessary having due regard to the requirements of the business, and not consequently deductible under rule 12 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?
Held that:- Reasonableness or the necessity of payments under rule 12, Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act must be ascertained in the light of what may be regarded as commercially expedient and not on any legalistic considerations. It would not be expected of a businessman to start a litigation in respect of a tax which the Legislature of the State was competent to levy on the ground that the method devised for computing the tax liability was ultra vires. The tax was duly assessed and paid and the reasonableness and necessity must be adjudged in the light of the circumstances then prevailing and not in the light of subsequent developments. The High Court was right in answering the question in the negative. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 4
Whether there was evidence on which the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion that the sum of ₹ 75,820 was the assessee's income from business ?
Held that:- The High Court answered the question correctly. No doubt, this was only a single venture ; but even a single venture may be regarded as in the nature of trade or business. When a person acquires land with a view to selling it later after developing it, he is carrying on an activity resulting in profit, and the activity can only be described as a business venture. Where the person goes further and divides the land into plots, develops the area to make it more attractive and sells the land not as a single unit and as he bought it but in parcels, he is dealing with land as his stock-in-trade ; he is carrying on business and making a profit. This is exactly what had happened in the assessee's case. The answer given by the High Court was thus correct. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 3
Accounting Year, Interim Dividend, Year In Which Assessable ... ... ... ... ..... of the loss as computed by him for the purposes of that section was not followed. No doubt, under section 30 an appeal lies, if the assessee objects to the amount of loss computed and notified under section 24 but inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer had not notified the loss computed by him by order in writing, an appeal could not be taken on that point. In our opinion, the assessee was, therefore, entitled to have the loss re-determined in a subsequent year. Learned counsel for the Commissioner stated that the Department was not very anxious for the decision, because this particular assessee has had only losses in the years following, and no loss would be occasioned to the revenue, if the losses brought forward be re-determined. But that is a matter, with which we are not concerned. In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court impugned before us was correct in the circumstances of the case. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. One hearing fee. Appeals dismissed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 2
Whether the respondent is " an association of persons " within the meaning of section 3 of the Act?
Held that:- In our view the respondent was an association of persons and was rightly so assessed to income-tax and excess profits tax. Appeal allowed.
-
1961 (3) TMI 1
Whether the repayment of excess profits tax made by the Central Government in pursuance of section 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, or section 2 of the Excess Profits Tax Ordinance, 1943, is profits from business for the purposes of section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- The amount refunded did not lose its character which it had before the deposit and, therefore, it is an erroneous view to take that the income was assessable under section 12 of the Act and not under section 10. If it was income failing under section 10, as in our opinion it was, then the appellants were entitled to get the benefit of section 25(4) of the Act and the amount was not liable to taxation. Appeal allowed.
|