|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 288 Records
-
1993 (10) TMI 314
... ...
... ... ..... ly a compendious name given to a group of persons who agreed to carry on the business in partnership as partners. Secondly, this is only an isolated transaction unlike in the case before the Allahabad High Court where it was a continuous course of conduct. Thirdly, there was enough credit balance in the accounts of the partners who were entitled to withdraw, which does not seem to be the case in the case of the directors of the case before the Allahabad High Court. This decision was only an application of an earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. 1991 187 ITR 363. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the principles laid down in those cases which turned on the facts of those cases do not apply to the facts before me. I am, therefore, in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal of the case in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1993 (10) TMI 313
... ...
... ... ..... by the Supreme Court in the famous case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. 1971 82 ITR 50 to mean that such mistakes which would be apparent from the record without any debate or long-drawn process of reasoning could alone said to be the mistakes apparent from the record amenable to rectification under section 254(2). There was in this case not only a long-drawn process involved, but there was also a difference of opinion between the Members requiring reference to a Third Member for his opinion as to whether there is a mistake apparent from the record or not. If there is no mistake apparent from the record, as I see in this case, this appears to be a case for review for which we have no power. Of course, this is beside the point. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee deserve to be dismissed. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal of the petition in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1993 (10) TMI 312
... ...
... ... ..... , I am of the opinion, as expressed earlier, that the assessee was a tenant at the relevant time and, therefore, the property has to be valued only on income method and so valued the apparent consideration is more than reasonable and the sale of the property at that value did not confer any benefit or perquisite on the director by the company so as to invoke the provisions of section 2(24)(iv) of the Incometax Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Commissioner of Incometax was not justified in setting aside the assessment on the ground that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and caused prejudice to the interests of the Revenue on the belief that the value of this property was Rs. 40 lakhs as against which it was sold for Rs. 2,30,000 and the difference amounted to conferring of a benefit on the assessee by the company. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for the disposal of the appeal in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1993 (10) TMI 311
... ...
... ... ..... ependent of section 176(3A) or section 176(3A). It is true that this aspect was not gone into in this manner by my learned brothers particularly, the Accountant Member. Since the Gujarat High Court covers the issue fairly, I respectfully follow the judgment and hold that the sum in question was not taxable. Before I conclude, I would like to mention that the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member that, because of the sameness of the business, the amount is taxable is not a sustainable argument. A business cannot exist without ownership. It is the ownership that matters and not the business name. The learned Accountant Member has confused the business name for the ownership. This in my view is not proper. I agree with the view expressed by the learned Judicial Member and hold that the sum in question is not taxable in the hands of the assessee-firm. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for disposal of the case in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1993 (10) TMI 310
Whether the report of the Inquiry Officer/authority who/which is appointed by the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee, is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its own finding with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment?
Held that:- Placing reliance on the existing law till date of Ramzan Khan, the employers treated that under law they had no obligation to supply a copy of the enquiry report before imposing the penalty. Reversing the orders and directing to proceed from that stage would be a needless heavy burden on the administration and at times encourage the delinquent to abuse the office till final orders are passed. Accordingly I hold that the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case would apply prospectively from the date of the judgment only to the cases in which decisions are taken and orders made from the date and does not apply to all the matters which either have become final or are pending decision at the appellate forum or in the High Court or the Tribunal or in this Court.
-
1993 (10) TMI 309
IMPORT — SALES IN THE COURSE OF IMPORT — TRANSFER OF DOCUMENTS OF TITLE BEFORE GOODS CROSS CUSTOMS FRONTIER — MEANS BEFORE GOODS CROSS CUSTOMS STATION UPON CLEARANCE BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES AND FIND FREE ACCESS TO COUNTRY — TRANSFER AFTER UNLOADING FROM SHIP BUT WHILE GOODS LYING IN CUSTOMS STATION - EXEMPTIONS — CONDITION PRECEDENT — PRODUCTION OF DECLARATION FORM — PRODUCTION BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPON SHOWING SUFFICIENT CAUSE — PERMISSIBLE
-
1993 (10) TMI 308
Orders with respect to the fee structure in private professional colleges and for other appropriate orders.
-
1993 (10) TMI 307
Filter bags made of fibre glass - Notification No. 68/69-Cus ... ... ... ... ..... is not only for filtering but filter bags are one of the devices used in the bag house for the purpose given in Notification 68/69. They have stated in the bag house each filter bag functions as bag filter and there is nothing else in the bag house which can be called a bag filter. In view of the above, on an over all consideration of the terms of the notification and evidence on record, it can reasonably be held that the goods imported, namely, fibre glass filter bags covered by the certificate issued by the Deputy Secretary, Deptt. of Chemicals and Petroleum are eligible for exemption under Notification 68/69 against serial No. 19 of the Table thereto. The fact that the certificate from the Ministry of Petroleum was produced belatedly will not be a bar to the exemption in the circumstances as has been held by the Tribunal in similar situation in the case of Vaz Forwarding v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2019 (T). The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1993 (10) TMI 306
Classifiaction ... ... ... ... ..... se, Pune -1985 (22) E.L.T. 378 the Bombay High Court held that ldquo nylon self locking nut rdquo , is a kind of nut and is classifiable under Item 52. rdquo Therein the Supreme Court also quoted the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Simmonds Marshall (supra). In this case the Assistant Collector had clearly brought out in his order that the primary function of lsquo U rsquo bolts is to fasten the different springs in the leaf spring assembly and he also mentioned that the individual lsquo U rsquo bolts do not have any functional utility of absorbing shock which the integral leaf spring assembly as a whole.Therefore, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court and Tribunal rsquo s decisions cited supra, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). We also find that the Ashok Leyland decision, relied upon by the appellants, was given without reference to both the Supreme Court decisions cited supra. In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1993 (10) TMI 305
High Court struck down section 1 of Act No. 16 of 1985 [the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985] to the extent of its applicability retrospectively between 7th September, 1984 to 24th October, 1984
Held that:- Appeal allowed. No judgment of any court was sought to be circumvented. The judgment under appeal of the High Court is set aside. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 1 of Act No. 16 of 1985 are upheld.
-
1993 (10) TMI 299
Liability to pay purchase tax on the oil-seeds purchased - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No justification for the appellants to keep quiet for a period of 23 years and then come forward with an application for correction with retrospective effect from 1951. The appellants cannot plead ignorance of non-inclusion of oil-seeds for the purpose of extracting oil therefrom in their certificate for such a long period. Thus they cannot now seek retrospective correction covering such a long period.
-
1993 (10) TMI 291
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... mpany petition, but that is not the cases in the case in hand. Similarly, the decision of the Orissa High Court, relied on by the respondent, in the case of Misrilal Dharamchand P. Ltd. v. B. Patnaih Mines P. Ltd. 1978 48 Comp. Cas. 494 , has no applicability to the facts of this case. In fact, I find that the respondent has not prima facie set up a bona fide dispute. The plea sought to be raised had not been raised at any earlier stage nor can it be called bona fide. In view of the circumstances discussed above, I admit the petition to hearing. Let the citation be published in the daily newspapers Statesman (English), Veer Arjun (Hindi) and the Delhi Gazette. However, it is made clear that the publication be not issued for a period of two months in order to enable the company to pay up its debts to the petitioner. If the debts are not paid within this period of two months, then the petitioner will be at liberty to take out the citation for publication in accordance with law.
-
1993 (10) TMI 290
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... nt of account of the respondent company mentioned in annexure R-IV , the same was never forwarded to the petitioner at any stage. Statutory notice was duly received by the respondent and in response the only defence taken was that the petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 1,35,780. With this reply dated May 4, 1992, annexure R-IV was not forwarded to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had no opportunity to know how the respondent had raised counter-claim. To my mind, in view of the settlement of debt after discussion it cannot be said that the respondent has raised a substantial or a bona fide dispute. The admitted liability presently due has not been discharged by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is within its right to file this petition. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the petition be admitted for hearing. Let the citation be published in the daily newspaper Statesman (English), Veer Arjun (Hindi) and Delhi Gazette for January 20, 1994.
-
1993 (10) TMI 288
Directors - Power of ... ... ... ... ..... been established. If the petitioning companies were not the owners of the vehicles nor were they in possession thereof, they could not give them on hire to the appellant-company. Transference of possession for consideration is the essential ingredient of a valid hire-purchase agreement. Since the basic condition is non-existent, there is no escape from the conclusion that the hire-purchase agreements were invalid and without consideration. The ledger account on which reliance is placed to fasten the liability on the appellant is not supported by corroborative evidence, viz., cash vouchers or the entries of the ledger account debited to the account books of the appellant-company. The petitioning companies have failed to establish that any amount is due to them from the appellant-company. For the reasons stated above, the appeals succeed, the judgments and decrees under challenge are set aside and the claim petitions filed by the petitioning companies are dismissed with costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 286
Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... der sub-section (5) of section 454 of the Act as it is not alleged that the respondent committed default in complying with the requirements of section 454 without reasonable excuse and at any rate, nothing is shown to establish that he did not have reasonable excuse for not filing the statement when he has clearly stated in his reply to the notice of the official liquidator that he ceased to be a director eight years prior to the relevant date and he did not have any material whatsoever to submit the statement of affairs of the company. The company application is therefore dismissed. It is made clear that this order does not preclude the official liquidator from requiring the respondent herein, i.e., Sri Koganti Krishna Kumar, to appear before him to give such assistance as is necessary in the winding up of the company. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent will give all assistance necessary if and when the official liquidator requires the same of him.
-
1993 (10) TMI 272
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... he respondent-company is genuine and bona fide. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Before concluding something needs to be stated about the payment of sum of Rs. 8,363 which was ordered by my brother, Judge Dhanuka. As stated earlier, the respondent-company have already sent their cheque of the said amount to the petitioner. It is made clear on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would accept the amount under the order of the court and without prejudice to his rights. In the circumstances, the following order is passed (i)Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (ii)In view of statement made with regard to the sum of Rs. 8,363, the petitioner to return the cheque to the respondent-company received by him and in lieu thereof the respondent-company shall send their fresh cheque in favour of the petitioner for the said amount which the petitioner to accept without prejudice to his rights and contentions. (iii)Issuance of certified copy is expedited.
-
1993 (10) TMI 271
Deficiency in service - Delay in transfer of shares ... ... ... ... ..... service to the complainant. The quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be weighed with arithmetical precision and more so, judicial notice can be taken of the market fluctuation of the share market. We are of the view that interest of justice would be served by awarding a compensation of Rs. 15,000 to the complainant and accordingly, we direct that respondent-1, Unit Trust of India be saddled with the amount of compensation. The modest amount of Rs. 15,000 includes interest and costs of the present litigation. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint, in the terms indicated above, with a further direction that the amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded by this Commission be paid by the Unit Trust of India to the complainant within two months of the receipt of a copy of these orders. Failing the same, the necessary consequences under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 may follow. Complaint allowed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 270
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ve. It is noticed that the parties herein have business dealings for a considerable period and transactions of over crores of rupees have gone through. It is noticed that the debt liability claimed by the petitioners relates to the earlier period and it is relevant to note that at subsequent stages the petitioner-company was having business dealings with the respondent-company over crores of rupees and on admission of the petitioners the respondent-company has paid the said debts. That rules out any doubt about the commercial solvency of the respondent-company. This court is of the prima facie view that the dispute raised by and on behalf of the respondent-company is reasonable and bona fide. There is no case made out even prima facie by the petitioners that the commercial solvency of the respondent-company is in jeopardy. Therefore, I hold that the dispute raised by the respondent-company is bona fide and consequently the petition filed stands rejected. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 269
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... ated latest financial position, from the year 1991 onwards. In the affidavits of Vasant N. Navada, dated August 18, 1993, filed on behalf of the petitioner company and in the affidavit of Ganesh L. Bhangale filed on behalf of transferor-company, i.e. Ahmedabad Polyarns Company Private Limited, they have in a vague manner purported to make available Unaudited (Provisional) Financial Results (underlining supplied and copied as appearing in the aforesaid affidavits). To say the least, it is not in compliance with the abovequoted provision of the statute. To sum up, therefore, the various objections taken to the merger, have considerable substance and force and have to be sustained. Both the applicants are secured creditors of both the companies with heavy dues as mentioned above and they apprehend, and justifiably, that merger would jeopardise their claims. This court accepts the said contentions. In the circumstances, the petition stands rejected. However, no order as to costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 268
Compromise and arrangement, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ch decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Testeels Ltd. v. Radhaben Ranchhodlal Charitable Trust, AIR 1988 Guj. 213 1989 66 Comp. Cas. 555, construing the meaning of section 22(1) of the SIC Act, the Bench accepted the claim of the company, raised in an identical manner as in the case before this court, and held that the petition for winding up filed without prior consent of the Board was not maintainable and consequently proceeded to dismiss the same. In view of the clear provisions of law noticed above, considered in the various decisions referred to above, and the ratio laid down therein, and in view of the facts and circumstances as obtaining in the matter herein, the same would squarely apply in this case. Consequently, it is held that the petition herein is not maintainable as being filed without prior consent of the BIFR. Hence, the following order. Petition is dismissed. However, there shall not be order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy is expedited.
........
|
