|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 187 Records
-
1978 (8) TMI 178
Acquittal of the respondents who were partners of the firm called Kallupalam Lad's Jewellery Mart, Kottayam, registered for jewellery business under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 of the charges under section 46(1)(a) of the Act for submission of untrue returns, under section 46(1)(c) of the Act for failure to keep true and complete accounts, and under section 46(2)(c) of the Act for fraudulent evasion of tax dismissed - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No witness on behalf of the prosecution has come forward to testify that the secret books of account did not contain any entry relating to the business dealings of Kallupalam Auto Stores which stands registered in the name of Marykutty and which also is housed in the same building in which Kallupalam Lad's Jewellery Mart is housed. The connection of the respondents with the entries in the secret books of account could also have been established by producing some of the customers whose names are admittedly to be found in the secret books of account to testify that the deals evidenced by the entries were transacted by them with the Kallupalam Lad's Jewellery Mart of which the respondents were the proprietors. As the prosecution has failed to resort to any of these methods, they have to thank themselves for the result of the prosecutions upon which it seems to have launched without seeking expert legal assistance. Thus no position to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court.
-
1978 (8) TMI 169
Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet, Offences against the act to be cognizable only on complaints by registrar, etc.
-
1978 (8) TMI 161
Officer, Winding up – Offences by officers of companies in liquidation ... ... ... ... ..... ice. As a matter of fact, voucher No. 320 shows that the amount of Rs. 15,000 has been drawn from the Jaipur office and has not been credited in the Delhi office. The accountant and the auditor have failed to find out any co-relation between the suspense amount of Rs. 20,000 with that of Rs. 15,000. From the evidence of Shri S.P. Sharma and Shri P.C. Dhadda such a co-relationship between Rs. 15,000 drawn from the Jaipur office and the suspense amount of Rs. 20,000 could not be established. In view of these circumstances, no other conclusion can be drawn except this that there is no co-relationship between this amount of Rs. 15,000 drawn from the Jaipur office and the suspense amount of Rs. 20,000. For the reasons stated above, the claim filed by the official liquidator is accordingly decreed against the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 6 with costs. The non- applicants would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 from 25th August, 1965, till the date of realisation of the amount.
-
1978 (8) TMI 153
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... . 500 had been paid on September 14, 1964) was due towards the hire-money from the debtor as on August 7, 1968, and that the amount of incidental charges remaining payable to the company as on June 25, 1976, was Rs. 2,056.57. The company is, therefore entitled to recover from the respondents the sum of Rs. 9,500 by way of hire-money, interest thereon at 12 per annum from August 7, 1968, to the date of application (which works out to Rs. 8,550), the sum of Rs. 2,Q56.57 due, toward incidental charges and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 1,742.50 as stated in the petition. In all, therefore, the applicant is entitled to recover from the respondents the sum of Rs. 21,850. The last issue is regarding the relief to which the applicant is entitled. In view of my above discussion, I pass a claim order in favour of the applicant jointly and severally against the three respondents for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,850. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the application.
-
1978 (8) TMI 152
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ission. Firstly, the present petition is based on the notice of demand (annexure D) said to have been made expressly in terms of section 434 of the Act. Not only no reference has been made in annexure F to any proceeding which could be taken under the Companies Act, but only a fortnight s time was allowed to the company to pay the dues in this letter which is against the statutory period allowed to a debtor-company to pay the debt after service of notice of demand on it under section 434 of the Act. In my view, the notice of demand (annexure D) under section 434 of the Act has been superseded by the demand made in the letter (annexure F) and in the circumstances no winding-up proceeding can be maintained on the basis of the notice of demand (annexure D). For the reasons which I have given above, therefore, the petition of winding up in the present case cannot be admitted and the same is accordingly rejected. The parties will bear their own costs of the hearing of this matter.
-
1978 (8) TMI 150
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent, directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... e Supreme Court arid to leave the liquidator to pursue his ordinary remedy of instituting a civil suit against the estate of the deceased. In the present case, the three, directors, whose legal representatives are the appellants before us, had died at an early stage of the proceedings before the company court. They had not been examined in the misfeasance proceedings nor had they an opportunity to place before the company court the evidence in support of their contentions, prior to their death. In these circumstances, we do not think that it would be just fair or equitable to Continue the misfeasance proceedings against the appellants who are the legal representatives of those three directors. The orders under appeal are therefore set aside and the petitions filed by the liquidator for impleading the appellants herein as supplemental respondents in Application No. 153 of 1971 will stand dismissed. The appeals are allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 149
Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet ... ... ... ... ..... al meeting which was held on the 15th of July, 1976. In our view, the prosecution is misconceived and this view is shared by Mr. J.N. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing oh behalf of the Assistant Registrar of Companies. In case the annual accounts of a company are not ready for laying at the annual general meeting it is open to the company concerned to adjourn the said annual general meeting to a subsequent date by an appropriate resolution and the accounts may be laid at the adjourned annual general meeting. This was done in the instant case and this is in accordance with the circular bearing No. 35/9/72-CL. III, dated February 2, 1974, issued by the Company Law Board, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. In view of what has been stated above, this rule is made absolute and the proceeding pending against the petitioners and others in Case No. C/3044 of 1977 in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta, is quashed. S. C. Majumdar, J. mdash I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 145
Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... of any of the requirements of section 454 without reasonable excuse an offence. The argument is that the official liquidator may choose not to require the persons mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of section 454 within 21 days of the relevant date or within the extended time of 3 months from pat date to submit the statement and thus make them defaulters punishable under section 454(5) of the Act. We need only point out that sub-section (3) proceeds on the basis that the obligation to file the statement arises on the relevant date, which is so only so far as those persons mentioned in the earlier part, of section 454(2) who are bound to submit the statement even without any requisition by the official liquidator are concerned. Sub-section (3) would, therefore, govern only those whose obligation to submit the statement arises on the relevant date, and not those who become bound to do so only on the official liquidator requiring them to do so. Dismissed No costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 124
... ...
... ... ..... there was adequate consideration for the conversion of the business into a partnership business and so there was no question of any gift of goodwill to major children who had contributed capital for the business. 6. In the case relied, by the departmental representative, the sole proprietor of the business transferred the monies of the business to share capital of their children. There were all cases where the assessee relinquished share of interest in the proprietary business to his children without consideration. As already pointed out in the case the sons and daughters jointed the partnership after contributing own capital. There is no indication that such capital came from the father or from the proprietary business. In the case decided by the Madras High Court (113 ITR 574) the facts are similar to the facts of the present case. So following two decisions of the Madras High Court, we confirm the finding of the AAC. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 123
... ...
... ... ..... e interpretations possible. Even if the interpretation canvassed by the Department is possible, we consider that the first being the interpretation more beneficial to the assessee, such interpretation should be given to s. 5(1)(xxxii) in accordance with the well recognised canons of interpretation of statutes). For authority for this proposition see the observations of the Supreme Court in CIT West Bengal I vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.(1) at page 195). 7. It is directed that on the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, we direct that the computation as made by the AAC would stand modified to the extent that from the gross value of the assets no deduction would be made for the value of the land of Rs. 25,742 or of the value of the building of Rs. 3,35,524. This is because in respect of the aforesaid lands and buildings no exemption has been allowed under any of the clauses of s. 5(1). The computation would be re-worked subject to our aforesaid directions. 8. The appeal is allowed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 122
... ...
... ... ..... l, 1970 to 16th April, 1970, the proportion includible under s. 64(2) in the assessee rsquo s case etc. according to law. The learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that since Expln.-2 refers to a fictional partition on the last day of the previous year and as the HUF consisting of the assessee and his two sons has already been actually partitioned on 16th April, 1970 with regard to these assets, nothing would be left for total partition as envisaged under Expln. 2 the JUF still continuing on that date. This argument of the assessee has to be accepted. Since Expln. 2 refers to a total partition and a partial partition of the assets under consideration has already been effected on 16th April, 1970 no share under s. 64(2) could be included in the income of the assessee on the basis. In our opinion, therefore, no share for this period also is assessable in the individual rsquo s hands. The assessee rsquo s appeals are allowed and the Departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 119
... ...
... ... ..... s given in CWT vs. Smt. Arundhati Balakrishna Trust (5),and CWT vs. Arvind Narottam (6). The entire issue is now settled by the Supreme Court decision in CWT vs. Nizam s Family (Remainder wealth) Trust (7). 7. In the light of the above decisions we have no hesitation in holding that whatever beneficiary the position with regard to reverting to the settlor under the Trust Act for IT purposes, the position of the trust during the relevant accounting year alone is important. From a reading of the trust deed it is clear that during the previous years relevant to the assessment years under appeal the assessee has clearly beneficiaries. It is also clear that during these previous years none of the contingencies leading to the reversion of the assets to the author of the trust ever happened. This being so, the ITO has not done correctly in including the income from a property already alienated by the assessee in his total income. The assessee s appeals for all the years are allowed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 117
... ...
... ... ..... case do not help the Department on the facts of the present case. Further, the Department s argument that there was only an application of income by the declarations does not appeal to be correct because the declaration reproduced in the order of the Tribunal referred to above shows that there was impressing of 35/100 shares in M/s. Sri Krishna Corporation with the character of joint family property and abandonment by the assessee of all his separate rights. Therefore that argument of the Department also does not hold good here. On the other hand, the decision of the Gujarat High Court relied on by the Tribunal and also the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (113 ITR 133) supports the point that the share are impressed with the character of HUF property. Accordingly we hold that the AAC was right in directing the exclusion from the hands of the assessee the share of 35/100 in M/s. Krishna Corporation and we confirm his order. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 115
... ...
... ... ..... th-tax assessments were reopened. Their Lordships negatived the contention of the Revenue that the liabilities arising from such declarations filed under s. 68 of the Finance Act, 1965 could only arise at the time of the declaration and not on the valuation dates. Their Lordships held that the liability for tax arising out of declaration under s. 68 of the Finance Act, 1965 was nothing other than the liability under the IT Act, 1961 which was the Act that was applicable. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to this case. The above view has also been taken by the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts in the cases cited by the assessee rsquo s learned counsel and are referred to above. Respectfully following the above rulings, we accept the assessee rsquo s claim. We direct that the claim of deduction in respect of the income-tax as a liability should be accepted and the liability should be deducted in computing the net wealth of the assessee. 5. The appeal is allowed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 113
... ...
... ... ..... ect the true market value on the valuation date. In the present case, it does appear that the quoted price did not reflect the true market value on the valuation date for these assessment years as the quotation was of a period long anterior to the valuation dates. In such circumstances, was necessary to consider whether the valuation of the shares could be done on the basis of the actual sale transactions or under r. 1.D of WT Rules. The actual sale transactions as already stated were available. R. 1-D of the WT Rules was also relevant as the shares question, having not been regularly quote could be treated as unquoted shares. On this basis the value per share was Rs. 3.98. The assessee, on the basis of the actual sales valued the share at Rs. 7.50 per share for asst. yr. 1972-73 and Rs. 4 per share for asst. yr. 1973-74. We feel these valuations were proper and the learned AAC rightly accepted these. We uphold the others of the learned AAC and dismiss the Department Appeals.
-
1978 (8) TMI 112
... ...
... ... ..... he possession taken otherwise. In fact, in respect of latter type of cases i.e. cases where possession is assumed otherwise than under the Act, it was considered that it may be said that the owner was given interest in place of right to retain possession of the property. The decision in Shyamlal Narula rsquo s(12) case, therefore, cannot be a guide for the cases in which possession has been taken otherwise than under the Act, as is the position in the present case. 14. We have also gone through the observations in Kanga and Palkhiwala and Pithisaria and Chaturvedi which have been referred to by the learned counsels. After considering these and the various decisions, in our view this case is governed by the Kerala decisions in 87 ITR 666 and following respectfully the Kerala view, we hold that the interest of Rs. 9,927 is a capital receipt and is not liable to tax and as such we set aside the orders of the authorities below on this point. 15. In the result the appeal succeeds.
-
1978 (8) TMI 111
... ...
... ... ..... in detail the investment in the property. From his statement, it is clear that sums of Rs. 1,10,000, Rs. 9000 and 11,000 were taken on loan from M/s Kewal Chand Bhanwarlal, Jodhpur, M/s Dharm Chand Prakash Chand, Jodhpur and M/s Surana Finance Corpn. Ahmedabad, respectively. He also stated that he has taken loan of Rs. 1000 from some other person, but at that time he could not remember the name, His statement is fully supported from the Balance Sheet, it comes out that the assessee invested Rs. 59,359, 55,113 and 24,707 in the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 73-74 and 1974-75 respectively. The learned AAC gave other reasons in support of his finding. 35. Looking to the aforesaid facts and evidence on record, in our opinion, the assessee was able to explain the investment in the construction of the building. 36. The learned counsel for the assessee stated before us that he does not press the cross objection. 37. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The Cross objection is also dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 110
... ...
... ... ..... fying an apparent mistake under s.35 of the IT Act, 1922. These cases cannot be considered as authority for the proposition that the Commissioner has power to revise the order of the ITO which has been a subject matter of an appeal before the AAC and to direct him to reconsider certain items of income or expenditure in respect of which an objection could be raised by the Department before the AAC. If the ratio of Amritlal Bhogilal and Co.(3) is properly understood the Commissioner will have jurisdiction under s. 263 only in respect of a matter which is not appealable or which cannot be raised by the Department before the AAC in an appeal filed by the assessee. 15. The Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal M/s Malkhan Singh vs. ITO (8) had taken the same view and with respect we will follow the same in the absence of any other authority taking a contrary view on this specific question. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 is set aside.
-
1978 (8) TMI 109
... ...
... ... ..... n apparent mistake under s. 35 of the IT Act, 1922. These cases cannot be considered as authority for the proposition that the Commissioner has power to revise the order of the ITO which has been a subject matter of an appeal before the AAC and to direct him to reconsider certain items of income or expenditure in respect of which an objection could be raised by the Department before the AAC. If the ratio of Amritlal Bhogilal and Co(3) is properly understood, the Commissioner will have jurisdiction under s. 263 only in respect of a matter which is not appealable or which cannot be raised by the Department before the AAC in appeal filed by the assessees. 15. The Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. M/s. Malkaan Singh vs. ITO(8) has taken the same view and with respect we will follow the same in the absence of any other authority taking a contrary view on this specific question. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 set aside.
-
1978 (8) TMI 108
... ...
... ... ..... d the case should be confirmed. 6. In our opinion there is force in the submission of the assessee s representative. It is no doubt true that there has occurred a delay of one month and two months for the second year. But the short question for our consideration is whether there was any reasonable cause for the same or not. The assessee has submitted that the same was due to negligence of accountant, who did not complete the accounts in time. We agree with the contention of the assessee s representative that the penalty would not be levied merely because the same is leviable unless it is shown that the assessee has acted in utter disregard of its legal obligation and in defiance of law. The case referred to by the assessee s representative in 102 ITR 301 also supports him. In our opinion taking the totality of the circumstances, it could be held that there was reasonable cause for the late filing of the returns and the same are accordingly deleted. 7. The appeals are allowed.
........
|
