|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 217 Records
-
1980 (2) TMI 227
Whether the appellant which is a limited company is not liable to make good to the State sales tax authorities the amount of sales tax leviable under section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in respect of the turnover covering the purchase by the petitioner of cotton during the period 1st April, 1969, to 8th June, 1969, which turnover had been exempted from sales tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, No. II, Guntur in his assessment order dated 30th April, 1971?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As at one stage of the argument Mr. Desai drew our attention to the fact that by reason of the amendments made in the statute law and the consequent demand by the D.C.C.T. for the refunded amount the appellant had been placed under a burden which did not fall on those who collected the Central sales tax from the purchasers and paid it to the Government because they were held entitled to refund of the tax under the A.P. Act even though they had not paid anything out of their own pocket as tax under the Central Act. However, as he did not challenge the constitutional validity of any of the amended sections he did not pursue the matter further and we need take no further notice of it.
-
1980 (2) TMI 219
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ny decree which may be passed in the aid suit and in that event the costs of this application would be costs in the said suit. But in default of furnishing such security by the company within the time as aforesaid the stay hereby granted would stand vacated and the winding-up petition would be advertised once in Statesman, once in Basumati and once in Calcutta Gazette and the matter will appear in the list on the 12th of May, 1980. In case the proposed suit is not filed by the petitioning-creditor but the security is furnished by the company within the time as aforesaid, in that event the present application will stand dismissed with costs and the security will stand discharged. On those terms the winding-up petition would remain permanently stayed and compliance with r. 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, would be dispensed with. This Registrar, Original Side, and all parties to act on a signed copy of the minute on the usual undertaking to complete and file this order.
-
1980 (2) TMI 212
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... t any dispute raised in good faith, and the company is unable to pay its debt. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the winding-up petition is an abuse of the process of the court. Only raising a dispute which is not bona fide, a debt cannot become a disputed debt. In the result, the winding-up petition is admitted. It is to be advertised once in Statesman, once in Basumati and once in Calcutta Gazette but not to be published before 31st of March, 1980. If the company pays the said sum of Rs. 10,831.22 together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from 23rd of April, 1979, until payment and an assessed cost of Rs. 510 on or before 31st of March, 1980, the winding-up petition would remain permanently stayed and compliance with rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, would be dispensed with. In default of payment the stay will stand vacated and the winding-up petition to be advertised as directed and to appear in the list on the 12th of May, 1980.
-
1980 (2) TMI 211
Custody of company’s property, Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... liquidator or the court about the winding-up of the company and the termination of their warrant of attorney issued in their favour by the plaintiff-company before it was wound up. Although it is an unfortunate position, but mistake is human, and taking the entire matter in its proper perspective, I cannot but hold that it was sheer negligence and oversight on the part of Jalan and Co., not to inform the court or the official liquidator about the said suit of the plaintiff-company in that event, the said order dated 12th August, 1977, which is a nullity, would not have come into existence. The official liquidator is directed to take immediate steps in the matter and Jalan and Co. is also directed to make over all cause papers, documents and other relevant papers in respect of the said suit to the advocate on record of the official liqudidator in this application, Mr. P.S. Bose, forthwith subject to their lien, if any, which will be decided subsequently, in proper proceedings.
-
1980 (2) TMI 210
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Power of tribunal to stay winding up ... ... ... ... ..... his case, which we have earlier indicated, go to show that no order for stay of the winding-up should be made and that the present petition is a mala fide one. The facts and circumstances of this case further go to suggest that the appellant-company which has not been in a position to run the mills for all these years and is hot still in a position to run the mill now, is now trying to have the order of winding-up stayed, not for its own benefit but for the benefit of other parties. The submissions of Mr. Mukherjee, on this aspect impress us. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this application must fail. This application is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Interim orders, if any, are all vacated. The amounts which have been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to earlier orders passed by this court will be refunded to the petitioner. Operation of this order will remain stayed for a fortnight and during this period status quo will continue. A. K. SARKAR, J. mdash I agree.
-
1980 (2) TMI 191
Declaration as to shares and debentures held in trust, Meetings and Proceedings - Exercise of Voting Rights in Respect of Shares Held in Trust, Declaration By person not holding beneficial interest in any share, Principles for interpretation of statutes
-
1980 (2) TMI 182
Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... 30, 1977. C.A. Nos. 680 and 681 of 1979 are for permission to change the date from November 30, 1977, to April 1, 1979. these applications for change of the appointed date have been necessitated on account of the delay in the disposal of these petitions for sanction. It was stated at the Bar that on December 27, 1978, the general body of the companies met and passed resolutions for changing the appointed date from November 30, 1977, to April 1, 1979. The learned standing counsel for the Central Govt. did not oppose these applications. In the circumstances, prayer No. 1 in C.A. Nos. 680 and 681 of 1979 are also ordered. The effective date on which the scheme of amalgamation dated November 2, 1977, for which necessary sanction has been accorded this day will stand altered from November 30, 1977, to April 1, 1979. In view of the fact that the transferee-company has to be dissolved without winding up, notice will be issued to the official liquidator under section 394 of the Act.
-
1980 (2) TMI 181
Certificate of registration ... ... ... ... ..... is set aside the order by itself expresses its existence in law. In the result, I hold that the proceeding is valid. The Registrar shall undoubtedly dispose of the matter at the earliest opportunity in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment and the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to above. With these observations I dismiss the application and leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Before parting, I would observe that in view of the present weight of decisions of the Supreme Court and the legislative recognitions of the principles, in the event of a breach of natural justice , in the first instance the invalidity can be cured or insulated by a quasi-judicial authority by ex post facto hearing or a full and fair de novo hearing by the same authority or body. I conclude by saying that I have derived immense benefit from the erudite and scholarly arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
-
1980 (2) TMI 167
... ...
... ... ..... t the same view should be repeated because as pointed out the Madras High Court decision does not lay down that the earlier view in the same case on a question of law should be blindly followed, but has clearly indicated the circumstances, whether the departure is permissible. We also agree with the contention that the question before the Bombay High Court for consideration in 118 ITR 399 is somewhat different and does not govern the dispute raised before us in the present appeal as to the right to the assessee or its option to waive the claim of right to depreciation allowance. 5. It is common ground that the question raised in this appeal assumes importance for the purposes of priority of set off and allowance or deduction and if the depreciation for the current year is not deducted the assessee is entitled to claim the set off of the earlier loss or other allowance which may lapse as there is some time limit for claim of its set off, 6. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 164
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee on the ground that the stand deduction is allowed only in respect of the expenditure incidental to the employment of an assessee. However, he observed that a retired person has no employment so that he may be entitled to the standard deduction. Shri Jalan the counsel of the assessee referring to the ss. 15, 16 and 17 of the IT act 1961 and the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1361 (Bom)/1976/77 and in ITA Nos. 2901 and 2902 (Madras)/1977/78 urged that the assessee should be allowed standard deduction. The departmental representative, on the other hand, supported the order of the AAC. 2. The identical issue came for consideration in ITA No. 338 (Pat) of 1979 and the Tribunal has allowed standard deduction after considering the provision in ss. 15, 16, and 17 of the IT Act, 1961. Consequently following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the ITO is directed to allow standard deduction to the assessee according to law. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 162
... ...
... ... ..... day to day stock book. 5. The ITO had taken by way of comparison similar dealers who according to him had shown a gross profit of 10.8 per cent to 12.8 per cent. it is the complaint of the learned counsel for the assessee that the ITO had not brought such instances to the knowledge of the assessee. On the other hand the learned counsel points out that he had shown similar dealers getting only a lesser gross profit of only 5 per cent. Gross profit in a trade depends upon may factors. When all the purchases and sales are property vouched there is no need to disbelieve the books of accounts. In as much as the business was closed next year the inference is that the assessee has not fared well in business. So a mere statement that the gross profit is low accounts is not sufficient to make acquisition addition to the turnover. Taking into consideration all these circumstances and facts of the case, we find that the addition made is not called for. The assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 160
... ...
... ... ..... , of the considered opinion that the reassessments made for this year is directly hit by the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (2), referred to above, wherein their Lordships have expressly disapproved their earlier decision in R.K. Malhotra, ITO vs. Kasturbhai Lalbhai (1), relied on by the AAC for rejecting the assessee s contention in this regard. We, therefore, hold that the re-assessment in this case is invalid in law. Since the re-assessment itself is invalid, the proceedings for enhancement made in the appeal arising out of such assessment order are equally invalid. We, therefore, restore the original assessment made in this case and set aside the re-assessment. In view of our above order, it is not necessary for us to go into the other contention raised in the assessee s appeal and in the appeal preferred by the Revenue before us. 5. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed and the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 158
... ...
... ... ..... f help in deciding the question that arose in Ranganayaki Ammal s case. As pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court also in the case reported in 105 ITR 92 did not refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in Rajamani Ammal s case obviously because that case dealt with a different situation. The submission of the learned departmental representative that the Supreme Court has impliedly overruled the decision of the Madras High Court in Ranganayaki Ammal s case is, therefore, devoid of merit. The only direct decision that us holding the field with reference to the unilateral act of throwing the individual property in the common hotchpot of the family is that of the Madras High Court in Rajamani Ammal s case reported in 84 ITR 790. We find that Appellate Controller of Estate Duty has only followed that decision in accepting the accountable person s claim. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb his order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and stands dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 156
... ...
... ... ..... Representative for the assessee also referred us to the passage occurring in Three New Taxes by Shri A.C. Sampath Iyengar, 1979, 5th Edition Vol. I, page 515, as per which the period of default would cease on the date when the regular assessment was made because on such assessment the full amount of tax would have been demanded and would have become payable under s. 30 of the WT Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We are not persuaded to hold that the AAC order requires interference. After the regular assessment is made, penalty for default in complying with the demand is leviable under other provisions of the Act. The period of default for self-assessment commences on the date of filing of the return and ends on the date when the regular assessment was made and demand was raised. The AAC has only given a direction to the ITO to recompute the penalty on the above. We see no flaw in his order which is accordingly upheld. 5. The appeal fails and stands dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 155
... ...
... ... ..... ast in the case of one of the artistes Jayachithra, a letter was addressed to her inviting her to attend the festival. It was stated that a similar letter was sent to the other artiste also. The point for consideration is whether the air ticket expenses from Madras to Tashkent and back incurred in connection with the cine artistes attending the Tashkent festival can be said to be an expenditure for the purpose of business of the assessee. The assessee s business being production of films and exploitation thereof, it stands to reason that any expenditure incurred, which will go to enhance the value of the pictures produced by them by taking part in prestigious events like the present one would undoubtedly advance the business interest of the assessee. We are, therefore, of the view that the CIT (A) has reached the correct conclusion in holding that the expenditure should be allowed. We see no reason to disturb his order. 5. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 154
... ...
... ... ..... inion by ITO. In this context the latest ruling of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT(1), becomes relevant. In the said judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered their earlier decision in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. vs. CIT(2). Their Lordships held that any error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more would not give the ITO power to reopen the assessment. Their Lordships further added that any observation in the decision reported in 102 ITR 287 suggesting the contrary did not lay down the correct law. In the instant case, it is common ground that only on reconsideration of the same material, the assessment was sought to be reopened. Such reopening is directly hit by the above decision of the Supreme Court. Respectfully following the dictum of the Supreme Court as above, we hold that the reassessments made in this case are invalid in law. 5. In the result, the cross-objections are allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 153
... ...
... ... ..... price which in the opinion of the WTO it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is for the WTO to estimate the value of the foreign asset, taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances of the case inclusive of the restrictions that were said to be imposed on the remittances of assets from the foreign country. The reliance on the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CWT vs. Abdul Hussain Mulla Mohd. Ali(1), without recording a finding of facts for the application of the ratio of that ruling, is pointless. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of AAC as well as that of the WTO for the years under appeal and restore the assessments to the file of the WTO with a direction to make fresh assessments in respect of the foreign asset of the assessee in the light of the directions given in this order. 6. For purposes of statistics, the appeals are treated as allowed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 152
... ...
... ... ..... e liability towards sales-tax and sales-tax, surcharge, which arose during the year allowed as a deduction in computing its total income. The decision relied on by the Revenue in E.A.E.T. Sunderaraj vs. CIT(1) is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case, there was a clear finding that the assessee was maintaining cash system of accounting in respect of the sales-tax collections and on the basis of the finding it was held that the liability to sales-tax could be deducted only when the same was paid out to the Govt. In that case it was also held that if the assessee was employing a method of accounting regularly and consistently, the profits should be computed in accordance with the method. On the facts of the instant case as discussed above the assessee has been following only the mercantile system of accounting for sales-tax and, therefore, the above decision is not applicable to this case. Accordingly we delete the addition of Rs. 12,177. The appeal is allowed
-
1980 (2) TMI 146
... ...
... ... ..... t finds place only on the bills and not reflected in the accounts. The assessees had not recorded in his accounts the gross sales and the discount paid. The assessee is not permitted to show the discount in his accounts is only a notional one and does not exist in reality, and the assessee never paid the discount as claimed. However, it is seen from the AAC s order that discounts were paid to the foreign buyers. The AAC points out that Trade discount is part and parcel of contract for sale and is covered by s. 35-B. The trade discount claimed is only reduction in sale price and not an expenditure to the assessee for the purpose of the s. 35-B. The Department relies on the decision of the Cochin Bench in ITA No. 147/74-75, a copy of which is furnished to us. For the reasons stated therein and for the reasons mentioned above the assessee is not entitled to the relief. So this point is found in favour of the Department. The departmental appeal is allowed in part as stated above.
-
1980 (2) TMI 145
... ...
... ... ..... therein. We find that after codification of the Hindu Law, none other than coparceners can have any interest in joint family property and in the case of a sole coparcener his ownership is absolute. In the context of the IT Act 1961, if at all we are to give some meaning to the word undivided in the expression Hindu undivided Family we must identify it with a coparcenary. Nothing can be more coparcenary. Nothing can be more clear or simpler than to say that the expression HUF in the IT Act 1961 refers only a coparcenary in relation to joint family property. 17. It follows that the present case, the assessee, i.e., a sole coparcener and his wife do not form a HUF within the meaning of the IT Act with respect to the property received on partition. Therefore, the income therefrom was rightly assessed in the hands of the coparcener in the status of an individual . The orders of the authorities below must therefore be confirmed. 18. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
........
|
