|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 90 Records
-
1972 (8) TMI 82
Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... ld to be merely a technical offence. Instead of there being imposed the penalty of fine as provided in subsection (3) of section 220 read in conjunction with section 162 of the Act, there has been administered admonition to the directors. It is not a fit case for giving the benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the directors of the company. Taking into consideration the fact that during the pendency of the complaint, the directors filed the copies of the balance-sheet with the Registrar after 6 months and 19 days after their default in filing having commenced from January 30, 1968, the maximum penalty of fine of Rs. 50 per day is not called for. Ends of justice would be met if fine of Rs. 10 per day is imposed upon them for the period of default committed by them. In the result, the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge is allowed and fine of Rs. 10 per day for the period from January 31, 1968, to August 19, 1968, is imposed upon the respondents.
-
1972 (8) TMI 72
Winding up – Suits Stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... e definition of debt in section 2(5) of Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors Relief Act was held to mean a civil liability and a liability which would be enforced by a civil court. There is thus no manner of doubt that the claim which is contemplated to be pursued under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 446 of the Companies Act has to be one which is enforceable at law. A claim, which is not legally enforceable, cannot be pursued under this provision. No jurisdiction has been created in the company court to revive claims lapsed by time. As the petitioner s claim against respondent No. 1 is barred by time, it is unenforceable under clause (b) of section 446(2). The petitioner s application is, therefore, rejected against respondent No. 1. The parties, in the circumstances of the case, however, are left to bear their own costs. The application of the official liquidator against respondents Nos. 2 to 5, however, shall now come up for further consideration on September 4, 1972.
-
1972 (8) TMI 63
Whether the amounts of £1,99,940, £1,92,907 and £98,017 standing in the special reserve account in the books of the assessee-company were deductible in determining the net wealth of the company for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, respectively?
Whether the amounts of £1,54,434, £2,08,934 and £2,62,811 standing in the shareholders' accounts as on the respective valuation dates were deductible in determining the net wealth of the company for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively?
Whether the amounts of £66,275, £131,180 and £274,587 out of the debentures of the company were allowable as debts owed by the company in the light of section 2(m) read with section 6 of the Wealth-tax Act?
Held that:- Coming to ques 1 once we come to the conclusion that they were not the assets of the Government, which conclusion to our mind is obvious, then it follows that they are the assets of the company. It is not the case of the company that those assets belonged to some third party. Every item of asset must belong to someone. The question is to whom did it belong? The obvious answer is that it belonged to the company. It is not the case of the company that the asset in question came within any of the exemptions mentioned in the Act.
Coming to the second question there was no debt owed by the company to the shareholders on that date. Hence the proposed dividend was not deductible in computing the net wealth of the appellant-company. The fact that a separate share-holders reserve had to be maintained by the company because of its agreement with the Government did not change the character of the asset.
For 3 question the debenture loans in question cannot be taken into consideration in ascertaining the net wealth of the company in view of section 6 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1972 (8) TMI 61
Whether the 10 per cent. gross profit payable to the assessee under the terms of the agreement appointing him as the managing director is liable to be assessed as salary or under the head "income from business"?
Held that:- A perusal of the articles and terms and conditions of the agreement definitely indicates that the assessee was appointed to manage the business of the company in terms of the articles of association and within the powers prescribed therein. Every power which is given to the managing director, therefore, emanates from the articles of association which prescribes the limits of the exercise of that power. The powers of the assessee have to be exercised within the terms and limitations prescribed thereunder and subject to the control and supervision of the directors which, in our view, is indicative of his being employed as a servant of the company.
We would, therefore, hold that the remuneration payable to him is salary.
-
1972 (8) TMI 46
Whether Wolfram Ore W03 65% falls within item 26 which covers metalic ores of all sorts with the exceptions mentioned therein?
Held that:- It is common ground that the wolfram ore which was imported by the appellants was never subjected to any process of roasting or treatment with chemicals to remove the impurities. It thus remained wolfram ore concentrate containing 65% W03 which was of the merchantable quality and was known commercially as such and imported as ore. Apart from all this it must be remembered that in interpreting items in Taxing Statutes resort should be had not to the scientific or technical meaning but to the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them in their commercial sense. There can, therefore be no manner of doubt that the goods imported by the appellants fell within item 26 of the Import Tariff and no duty was leviable on them. The appellants were entitled to the refund of the amounts which were paid by them by way of duty.
Appeals are allowed. The respondents are directed to make appropriate orders for refunding the amounts collected from the appellants by way of duty on the goods in question.
-
1972 (8) TMI 45
Levy and 'Collection' - Distinction between - Natural justice - Principles not followed - Levy and assessment - Difference between - Rule 10 vis-a-vis Rule 10-A.
-
1972 (8) TMI 44
Whether prosecution in case was barred by the rule of limitation in Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
Held that:- The complaint against respondents was that they wanted to evade payment of duty. Evasion was by using cut and torn banderols. Books of accounts were not correctly maintained. There was shortage of banderol in stock. Unbanderolled matches were found. These are all infraction of the provisions in respect of things done or ordered to be done under the Act.
The positive aspect of omission in the present case is evasion of payment of duty. The provisions of the Act require proper affixing of banderols. Cut or torn banderols were used. Unbanderolled match boxes were found. These provisions about use of banderols are for collection and payment of excise duty. The respondents did not pay the lawful dues which are acts to be done or ordered to be done under the Act.The High Court was right in its conclusion that the prosecution was barred by the provisions of section 40 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1972 (8) TMI 43
Income Tax Act, Reference Application ... ... ... ... ..... the eye of law is included in the definition of Commissioner , the application signed in the manner in which it has been signed must be deemed to have been presented by a competent authority. In any case a defect in the description of a party could have been got amended as it was not detrimental to the proceedings under section 256. We, however, hold that the application was properly signed and presented under section 256. The Tribunal having misconstrued the position of law erroneously declined to entertain the application properly filed by a competent authority. The order of the Tribunal is plainly inconsistent with the law. In these circumstances, we would quash the impugned order of the Tribunal in R.A. 47/Hyd/1971-72 arising out of I.T.A. No. 6132 of 1968-69 by the issue of a writ of certiorari and direct the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the application on its merits and in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1972 (8) TMI 42
Estate Duty Act, Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... ft-tax v. N. S. Getti Chettiar 1971 82 ITR 599 (SC), on partition between the members of a joint family there is no disposition of property for the purpose of the Gift-tax Act, it would not be a disposition also for the purpose of the Estate Duty Act. Thus, the view of this High Court in Kantilal Trikamlal s case 1969 74 ITR 353 (Guj) is now strengthened by the two decisions of the Supreme Court, one under the Gift-tax Act and the other under the Estate Duty Act when both of them are read together. In view of the above discussion and in view of the fact that there was a clear partition between the deceased and his son, Chandulal, there cannot be said to be a disposition of property by the deceased to Chandulal, and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,04,078 cannot be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative. The Controller of Estate Duty will pay the costs of this reference to the respondent.
-
1972 (8) TMI 41
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are applicable for determination of the assessee's interest in the wealth of the firm styled as Messrs. J. K. Bankers, for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1964-65 ? " - we hold that section 2(m) of the Act is not applicable and as such the income-tax liability of the firm is to be deducted out of the total wealth of the firm for purposes of ascertaining the assessee's share in that firm - Question answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department
-
1972 (8) TMI 40
Interpretation of section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - return was filed within four years from the end of the assessment year but before the assessment was completed - Whether penalty under section 271(1)(a) can be levied
-
1972 (8) TMI 39
This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this court, inter alia, for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order - Whether Tribunal has inherent power to review
-
1972 (8) TMI 38
" Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee under section 221(1) of the Act was validly imposed? "
-
1972 (8) TMI 37
Whether interest on compensation amount paid for a number of years in one lumpsum accrues in each year and whether is assessable in that year - assessing officer was of the view that the interest of Rs. 16,460 was in fact liable to be assessed during the year. The assessee disputed the liability of taxation in respect of the total amount of interest during the year on the basis that the said amount did not accrue due during the year and as such there should be no assessment in respect of the entire amount - " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in including the sum of Rs. 16,460 on receipt basis?" - Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, shall be that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were not justified in including the sum of Rs. 16,460 on receipt basis for the assessment year 1961-62
-
1972 (8) TMI 36
Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 - When the assessee sells all property to defeat anticipated claim of Income-tax and discharges all other creditors whether it can be said that sale is voidable and it was effected with the intention to defeat or delay creditors and also whether the suit to impugn the sale lies - The only question that arises for determination in this appeal filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 13 is whether the sales of the suit properties by the first defendant, which is a public limited company, in favour of the second defendant-firm, of which the partners are defendants Nos. 3 to 13, were effected with intent to defeat or delay the Union of India and other creditors of the first defendant-company – held that Union of India was not entitled to any relief under section 53 of Transfer of Property Act
-
1972 (8) TMI 35
Assessee had claimed deduction in respect of Rs. 20,065 spent on account of the travelling expenses, etc., of three technicians of Messrs. Reynolds Metal Company of America, who came to India for the purpose of examining the assessee's manufacturing plants. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure on the ground that it was capital in nature. – held that expenditure was allowable under s. 10(2)(xv) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1972 (8) TMI 34
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the Government notification dated April 27, 1961, it could be held that no liability accrued to the assessee-company for the payment of the gratuity for the assessment year under appeal ? " - contention put forward was that, under the notification an employee, who was removed from service for serious misconduct, was not entitled to any gratuity and to that extent the liability was contingent and uncertain. Now, such a case would indeed be rare and cannot convert the entire liability into a contingent one. At any rate that circumstance must have been taken into consideration in the actuarial valuation worked out by the actuary. In actuarial valuation all contingencies are taken into consideration before arriving at the discounted value of a liability like the present one - For the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee
-
1972 (8) TMI 33
Compensation is fixed but is not paid – date of accrual - it cannot be said that when the compensation was decided to be paid, it accrued or arose because compensation became ascertained only on the date on which it was finally fixed
-
1972 (8) TMI 32
Petitioners in all these petitions are minors. Declarations of voluntary disclosure of income under section 24 of Act No. 15 of 1965 were submitted on their behalf through persons other than the natural guardian which were returned by the Income-tax Officers concerned with the objection that the same were invalid as they did not bear the signature of the natural guardian of the minors. The petitioners in all the petitions have assailed these orders - petitioners, minors have not been able to make out a case for the reliefs prayed for by them in the writ petitions - Petitions dismissed
-
1972 (8) TMI 31
Power of tribunal to rehear the appeal – cancellation of order which was passed earlier ex parte
|
