Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 59 of 59 Records
-
1965 (9) TMI 39
... ... ... ... ..... perform that duty only because the assessee, realising that if he pursues his appeal it may be the worse for him, has sought leave to withdraw it. The learned counsel for the assessee also fairly concedes that this is so. 5.. It is, however, urged that this case is governed by the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, as in force in 1950-51 and, since there was, at the material time, no provision for a second appeal against an assessment, the appeal in this case as well as the application for enhancement of assessment must be regarded as incompetent. This question has not been referred to us and we must decline to express any opinion thereon. When the case goes back to the Tribunal, the assessee may, if he is so advised, raise it there. 6.. We answer the two questions referred to us in the affirmative. The Commissioner shall have his costs of this reference from the assessee who shall bear his own costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1965 (9) TMI 38
Income accrued or arise in India. ... ... ... ... ..... this case, should be taken distributively in relation to the place of accrual.He says that, as some of the activities resulting in the profits have accrued in British India, that part of the profits attributable to such activities in British India should be take into have accrued or arisen there. In support of his contention learned counsel principally relies on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co. (4), Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. (No. 2) v. Commissioner we have held that the whole of the commission accrued in Mysore,the last contention for the revenue does not arise. We may also point out that the necessary facts are not before us which will reflect upon the quantum, even if we were of the view that any part of the commission accrued in British India. We answer the first question referred to us in favour of the assessee,and, in view of this, the second question does not require an answer. The assessee will be entitled to his costs.Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1965 (9) TMI 37
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... and is making profits and likely to make more profits in future and there is no evidence whatever that the company has failed to meet any demand of its creditors. It cannot, therefore, be held that the company is unable to pay its debts. In view of the above, therefore, this petition must fail and the same is dismissed. The Registrar, however, had apparently good reasons to bring this petition because of the state of finances, as were disclosed by the balance-sheet of 1962. However, after the balance-sheets of 1964 and 1965 were put in and explanation had been furnished, I feel that the Registrar had no real justification to continue pressing this petition. In these circumstances, therefore, I feel that this is a fit case in which no costs should be granted to the Registrar except the value of the stamp he had to pay on the winding up petition. The petitioner-Registrar will, therefore, have his costs from the company only to the extent of Rs. 260 being the stamp paid by him.
-
1965 (9) TMI 36
remuneration of directors, Remuneration of directors – Increase, Directors, etc. not to hold place of profit, Power of Central Government to accord approval etc., subject to conditions
-
1965 (9) TMI 35
Restrictions on payments ... ... ... ... ..... ficant. But that is really travelling further afield, than is essential for the present case. The claim of the respondent is not based upon any such right, and the power of the appellant-bank to restrict the permission is not in dispute. What is claimed is that the restriction ought not to be imposed where the tour abroad does not directly impinge on the foreign exchange resources, of involve the release of foreign exchange. But that is too limited a view of the powers and functions of the appellant-bank, and we definitely consider that the matter should be judged, not merely in relation to the facts of a given instance, but in relation to a policy, and to the conceivable consequences, direct or indirect, of a large number of such cases. For the forgoing reasons, we are of the view that no writ of mandamus can issue in the case and that the appeal by the Reserve Bank of India, Madras, should succeed. The rule nisi is discharged accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1965 (9) TMI 34
Registration of change of name and its effects thereof ... ... ... ... ..... tiveness or validity of a contract. The other contention on behalf of the petitioner is in my opinion unacceptable. Parties adduced evidence. The assessment of evidence is a matter within the province of arbitrators. Whether the arbitrators preferred one form of evidence to the other is a matter which cannot be agitated by the petitioner in an application for determining the validity of an agreement or an award. Further, counsel for the respondent contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner that delivery order was not produced were gone into by the arbitrators and parties led evidence as to why delivery orders were or were not produced. In my opinion these questions do not fall to be considered in an application for setting aside an award. For these reasons I am unable to accept either of the two contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. This application is, therefore, dismissed with costs. I hold the arbitration agreement and the award to be valid and binding.
-
1965 (9) TMI 13
It is not clear how the figure of 46.8534 M.T. was reached on which differential duty was ordered to be refunded
Held that:- The order under appeal must be set aside because there was no fair opportunity to the Company to represent its case. We accordingly set aside the order of the Government and send back the case to Government for decision after affording the Company a fair opportunity of making such submissions on the material in the possession of Government, as it may choose to make
-
1965 (9) TMI 12
Share Income - share in the registered firm - computation of the assessee's total income ... ... ... ... ..... the deed (exhibit B) is that the share itself was the property of the ten persons named in that document. The deed (exhibit B), in my opinion, says clearly that the persons named there were the owners of that share and if that is correct, then the income from the share must be taken to be the income of not only the assessee but of all the ten persons in proportion to the shares mentioned in the deed. I thus find myself of the same opinion, and if I may say so, for the same reasons, as mentioned by the Bombay High Court, in Ratilal B. Daftari, s case. On the assumption, therefore, that the deed (exhibit B), dated the 30th March, 1951, is genuine, I would, in answer to the question posed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, say that on the facts of the case the entire sum of Rs. 1,34,944 cannot be included in the computation of the assessee s total income but only. 15/47.25 of it. The assessee will get his costs of the reference assessed at Rs. 250. SHAMSHER BAHADUR J.-I agree
-
1965 (9) TMI 11
Whether the unabsorbed depreciation of the past years should be added to the depreciation of the current year and the aggregate should be set off only against the business income of the assessment year 1960-61 or the income from all other sources - Held , no
-
1965 (9) TMI 10
ITO had jurisdiction to proceed both under s. 34 and s. 35 of the 1922 Act & chose to proceed under the latter section. It cannot be said that he had no jurisdiction to proceed u/s 35 of the Act merely because he had also the jurisdiction to proceed u/s 34 - ITO undoubtedly had the power to rectify the error u/s 154 of the 1961 Act and, even if the proceedings were initiated by a notice under section 35 of the 1922 Act, it can no longer be said that the order made u/s 154 of the 1961 Act was bad
-
1965 (9) TMI 9
This is an application by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore, for an order admitting the claim of Rs. 1,44,678.36 nP. against the company in winding up and for a direction to pay the same as a preferential claim - applicant is entitled to preferential payment of this amount under s. 530 of the Companies Act of 1956
-
1965 (9) TMI 8
ITO, assessed the income arising out of the debutter properties, in the hands of the P, as shebait - Whether the income of property could not be assessed in the hands of the shebait under s. 9 of the IT Act, 1922
-
1965 (9) TMI 7
Valuation - balance-sheet itself would show that a depreciation allowance has been allowed before arriving at the net valuation of the assets -therefore, that after the deduction, the net value of the assets represents the market value of the assets as estimated by the assessee itself, and unless circumstances justify, the assessee cannot claim further depreciation as it is seeking to claim in this case
-
1965 (9) TMI 6
Whether the amount receivable by the assessee from the jagir administrator as compensation on the abolition of the jagir constitutes the wealth of the assessee and is assessable under the Wealth-tax Act -
-
1965 (9) TMI 5
assessee purchases shares from business funds and shows them as an asset of the business - in the absence of evidence to show that the shares formed part of the stock-in-trade of the business, the loss cannot be allowed as a business loss
-
1965 (9) TMI 4
Proceedings u/s. 34 for a particular year can not be held to be pending if assessee had filed the return for that year by mistake in response to a notice u/s. 34 issued for a different year -held that notice of reassessment u/s. 147 can be issued in a case where the reassessment u/s. 34 (1A) of the 1922 Act was barred by limitation
-
1965 (9) TMI 3
Gift of self-acquired property by father to his sons - whether the sons take the property as Individuals or as Kartas of their respective HUF - held that income therefrom should be assessed as that of an individual
-
1965 (9) TMI 2
Managing agency commission - latter question is entirely different from the former - tribuanl dismissed assessee'sapplication stating categorically that this point was never argued before it and that consequently it was not referred to in its order - held that If the assessee wanted the other question to be formulated, its remedy was to move this court under section 66(2) for mandamus requiring the Tribunal to formulate it but it has not done so and the period of limitation for its doing so has expired.
-
1965 (9) TMI 1
Income of the assessee as interest accrued - loan - explanation given by assessee that the debtor firm was in an embarrassed financial condition and, therefore, the interest had not been debited to this account.
|