|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 56 of 56 Records
-
1956 (2) TMI 44
The Bombay High Court dismissed the application regarding the sales tax on a motor car sold by the applicants, as the car was considered an asset of the firm and had been used before sale, thus not subject to double taxation. The decision was based on previous rulings and the applicants being registered as dealers. (Case citation: 1956 (2) TMI 44 - Bombay High Court)
-
1956 (2) TMI 43
Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued by Sales Tax Officer under section 11A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1946 for escaped assessment.
2. Interpretation of section 48(2) of the Act of 1953 regarding the repeal of the old Act and recovery of tax liabilities.
3. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Authorities to assess based on the notice issued under the old Act versus the new Act.
4. Impact of differences in the form and duration of notices under the old Act and the new Act on the validity of assessments.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the validity of a notice issued by the Sales Tax Officer under section 11A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1946 for escaped assessment. The notice was issued after the Act of 1953 came into force, raising the question of whether the notice should have been served under the old Act or the new Act.
2. Section 48(2) of the Act of 1953 deals with the repeal of the old Act and the recovery of tax liabilities accrued under the old Act. The provision ensures that tax liabilities under the old Act remain unaffected by the repeal, but the machinery for assessment and recovery must align with the provisions of the new Act.
3. The Sales Tax Authorities issued the notice under the old Act, while the petitioners argued that it should have been issued under the new Act based on section 48(2)(iii). The court noted the differences in the scope of taxation under the old and new Acts, emphasizing that the form and content of the notice and assessment order must correspond to the specific tax liabilities under each Act.
4. An important discrepancy arose regarding the duration of the notice required under the old Act versus the new Act. Under the new Act, the notice duration is counted from the date of service, unlike the old Act where it was counted from the date of issue. The court held that the duration of the notice is part of the assessment machinery, and if the new Act's provisions can be applied, they should take precedence over the old Act's rules.
In conclusion, the court found that the notice issued by the Sales Tax Officer was defective due to the improper duration, rendering the assessment order invalid. The court emphasized that the notice is a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, and any defect in the notice undermines the validity of the assessment. Therefore, the court quashed the assessment order, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of the defective notice.
-
1956 (2) TMI 42
Issues:
Interpretation of sales tax liability on transactions involving the preparation and utilization of blocks for advertisements by an advertising firm.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Bombay High Court involved an appeal by an advertising firm concerning the sales tax liability on transactions related to the preparation and utilization of blocks for advertisements. The firm received orders for advertisements from clients, requiring the creation of blocks for publication. The firm then outsourced the block-making to another entity, with the clients' names disclosed in the orders. The authorities had imposed sales tax, considering the firm as purchasing and reselling the blocks to clients. However, the court analyzed the nature of the relationship between the firm, clients, and block-makers. The court noted that the firm acted as an agent for the clients in getting advertisements printed, as evidenced by client authorization in the order forms. This agency relationship exempted the firm from personal liability regarding the block-making contracts, as per the Indian Contract Act. The court emphasized that the firm's commission was akin to brokerage, not indicative of purchasing and selling blocks independently.
The court also considered the unique characteristics of the blocks in question, which were tailored specifically for clients' advertisements and thus not marketable to others. The court referenced previous decisions to support its ruling that the mere receipt of a commission did not transform the firm into a buyer or seller of the blocks. Citing precedents, the court held that the firm did not qualify as a dealer under the Sales Tax Acts, as they did not engage in direct transactions of buying and selling blocks. The court overturned the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing that the firm's role was that of an agent facilitating advertisement placements for clients, rather than engaging in the sale of blocks. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the previous orders imposing sales tax liability were set aside.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the advertising firm's activities involving block preparation for advertisements did not constitute direct sales transactions subject to sales tax. The court's analysis focused on the agency relationship between the firm and its clients, highlighting the absence of a principal-buyer-seller dynamic in the block-making process. The ruling underscored the distinction between acting as an agent for clients and engaging in independent transactions, ultimately absolving the firm from sales tax liability on the block-related activities.
-
1956 (2) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Commercial Tax Officer revising the assessment.
2. Interpretation of Section 11 and Section 12 of Act IX of 1939.
3. Authority of the Commercial Tax Officer to exercise powers of revision.
4. Legality and propriety of the order of the Commercial Tax Officer.
5. Validity of Rule 14A and its application in the case.
Analysis:
The plaintiff, a fish merchant, challenged the order of the Commercial Tax Officer revising the assessment, claiming it to be null and void. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer initially assessed the turnover at Rs. 81,300, which was later enhanced to Rs. 90,000 by the Commercial Tax Officer. The plaintiff contended that the revision was beyond the Officer's competence. The trial court granted the declaration in favor of the plaintiff, but the Subordinate judge on appeal held that the Officer had the power to revise the assessment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) and dismissed the action. The Commercial Tax Officer's authority to revise assessments was based on the Act and rules in force at the time, allowing him to interfere with the assessment determined by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.
Section 11 of Act IX of 1939 provided the right to appeal against an assessment, with the appellate authority empowered to pass final orders subject to the powers of revision under Section 12. The Board of Revenue had discretionary powers under Section 12 to examine and pass orders on any recorded proceeding for legality or propriety. Rule 14 designated authorities like the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commercial Tax Officer to exercise revision powers. Rule 14A outlined the procedure for determining the correct tax amount payable by a dealer, including issuing notices and conducting necessary inquiries.
The judgment highlighted that the Commercial Tax Officer, under the unamended Section 12, had the authority to revise assessments, even if an appeal was filed. The Officer's revision in this case was based on discrepancies in the plaintiff's accounts, leading to an increased turnover assessment. The judgment emphasized that the Officer's discretion in revision should be guided by judicial principles and reasonableness, ensuring proper examination of legality and propriety. The revising authority could correct errors or oversights in the original assessment, as seen in this case with the manipulation of accounts and sales suppression. The Commercial Tax Officer's actions were deemed within jurisdiction, and the Subordinate judge's decision upholding the validity of the Officer's order was deemed correct.
The judgment concluded by dismissing the second appeal, affirming the validity of the Commercial Tax Officer's revised assessment and upholding the costs.
-
1956 (2) TMI 40
Issues:
1. Penalty levied under sub-section (3A) of section 12 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946.
2. Interpretation of "tax payable" under the Act.
3. Application of penalty under sub-section (3A) of section 12.
4. Assessment and payment of tax under the Act.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment period from 1st April, 1949, to 31st October, 1952, where the applicants sold various items. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the tax and imposed a penalty under sub-section (3A) of section 12. The applicants appealed against the penalty but did not dispute the assessment. The Additional Collector rejected the revision application, citing arbitrary filing of returns and failure to estimate liability accurately as reasons for the penalty imposition.
2. The interpretation of "tax payable" under sub-section (3A) of section 12 was crucial. The applicants argued that tax does not become payable until assessed by the authorities. The court agreed with this contention, citing precedents that distinguish between liability declaration, assessment, and tax quantification. The court related this to the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Bombay Sales Tax Act to support the applicants' argument.
3. The penalty under sub-section (3A) of section 12 was calculated based on the difference between the total liability and payments made by the applicants. The court determined that the penalty should apply to the tax due according to the late returns filed and for late payment after assessment. The court upheld the penalty rate of three-fourths per cent per month, despite the lack of reasons provided by the lower authorities, due to the relatively small amounts involved.
4. The assessment and payment process under the Act were analyzed, emphasizing the importance of assessment under section 11 before tax becomes payable. The court highlighted the requirement for timely payment after assessment and the consequences of late payment. Ultimately, the court allowed the application, directing the amendment of the Additional Collector's order in line with the court's directions regarding penalty imposition.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of penalties under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of accurate assessment, timely payment, and the distinction between tax liability, assessment, and payment obligations under the Act.
-
1956 (2) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
1. Misfeasance and breach of trust by the director.
2. Alleged fictitious purchases of tobacco and stores.
3. Receipt and misappropriation of funds from Godfrey Phillips (India) Ltd.
4. Legal contention regarding ratification of wrongful acts by directors/shareholders.
5. Application of principles from cited legal precedents.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Misfeasance and Breach of Trust by the Director:
The official liquidator of Masters Tobacco Company (India) Ltd. initiated a misfeasance summons against a director, alleging misfeasance and breach of trust concerning large sums of money belonging to the company. The company was taken into liquidation by court order on 16th July 1952. The claims were narrowed down to the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 3,99,000 and Rs. 2,67,982-4-3.
2. Alleged Fictitious Purchases of Tobacco and Stores:
The applicant accused the respondent of showing bogus purchases of tobacco and stores in 1944. The company's records indicated an opening stock of tobacco worth Rs. 3,44,708-4-11 and purchases worth Rs. 2,68,348-9-3, totaling Rs. 6,13,056-14-2. The tobacco consumed was valued at Rs. 1,73,429-5-11, with no stock remaining at year-end. The company sold Rs. 4,39,627-8-3 worth of tobacco to Godfrey Phillips (India) Ltd. The charge of misappropriation concerning tobacco purchases was dismissed.
The more pressing charge involved the alleged fictitious purchase and consumption of stores. The opening stock of stores was Rs. 47,013-7-10, with purchases worth Rs. 5,66,517-15-6. The total consumption was Rs. 5,82,606-11-11, which the applicant argued was implausibly high for the three months of operation in 1944. Documentary evidence, including correspondence with the Comptroller of Foods Accounts, Delhi, indicated that the company supplied 15,80,00,000 cigarettes to the Government between August 1943 and March 1944, with 10,30,46,500 delivered by December 1943. The applicant calculated that the maximum number of cigarettes manufactured in 1944 could not exceed 7,74,00,000, requiring stores worth Rs. 2,38,942, far less than the Rs. 5,82,606-11-11 shown.
3. Receipt and Misappropriation of Funds from Godfrey Phillips (India) Ltd.:
The applicant alleged that the company received Rs. 2,80,212 for tobacco sold to Godfrey Phillips (India) Ltd., paid via four bearer cheques between 26th May and 3rd June 1944. However, the company's cash book falsely recorded these amounts as received in cash on earlier dates. The applicant argued that these false entries facilitated fictitious purchases of stores, enabling misappropriation of Rs. 2,80,212.
4. Legal Contention Regarding Ratification of Wrongful Acts by Directors/Shareholders:
The respondent argued that as the main shareholders and directors, he and M.M. Finegold effectively approved the accounts for 1944, thus ratifying any wrongful acts. This argument was based on a Privy Council decision in Attorney-General for Canada v. Standard Trust of New York [1911] AC 498, where all interested parties had concurred in the transaction. However, the court noted that this principle does not apply in cases of fraud.
5. Application of Principles from Cited Legal Precedents:
The court referred to the Privy Council's decision, emphasizing that the principle of ratification by shareholders does not apply when fraud is involved. The court also cited Lindley L.J. in In re George Newman & Co. [1895] 1 Ch. 674, stating that directors' misapplication of company assets constitutes a breach of trust, and such actions cannot be ratified simply because the directors are also the shareholders.
Conclusion:
The court found that the applicant successfully established the charge of fictitious purchases and consumption of stores amounting to Rs. 2,61,700. The respondent's arguments regarding ratification and the nature of the company as a private entity were dismissed. The respondent was directed to contribute Rs. 2,61,700 to the company's assets, with interest at 4% from 28th February 1955, and costs on a long cause scale.
-
1956 (2) TMI 33
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the distribution of the right to apply for shares of the Bank of India by Navjivan Mills Ltd. to its shareholders amounted to a distribution of 'dividend'.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Distribution of Right as Dividend:
The primary issue revolves around whether the distribution of the right to apply for shares of the Bank of India by Navjivan Mills Ltd. to its shareholders constituted a 'dividend' under the Indian Income-tax Act. The court noted that the Navjivan Mills had invested its profits in purchasing 5,000 shares of the Bank of India. The Bank of India offered its shareholders one share for every three shares held, on payment of Rs. 100 per share. Navjivan Mills decided to invest in only 66 shares and distributed the right to the remaining 1,600 shares among its 800 shareholders.
The court emphasized that the right to obtain one share for three shares had a market value of Rs. 100 per share. Navjivan Mills could have sold this right for cash, indicating that the right was a valuable asset of the company. The court distinguished between income and capital, asserting that the right constituted income or profits, not capital. Therefore, it was legally permissible for Navjivan Mills to distribute this right or its proceeds as a dividend.
2. Formalities of Dividend Declaration:
The court addressed the argument that the distribution did not follow the formalities required by the Companies Act for declaring a dividend. It was noted that a dividend could only be declared by the shareholders, and the directors could only recommend it. In this case, there was no formal recommendation or acceptance by the company. However, the court opined that the failure to comply with these formalities did not negate the nature of the transaction as a distribution of profits. The court emphasized that the true nature of the transaction should be considered, and if it involved the receipt of part of the company's profits by the shareholders, it should be treated as a dividend for tax purposes.
3. Definition of Dividend under Income-tax Act:
The Tribunal had considered the definition of dividend under section 2(6A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, which includes any distribution of accumulated profits that entails the release of the company's assets to its shareholders. The court agreed that there was a release of part of the company's assets to the shareholders. However, the court also considered the ordinary meaning of dividend, which involves the receipt of part of the company's profits by the shareholders. The court concluded that the distribution of the right to apply for shares fell within the ordinary meaning of dividend, regardless of the specific definition in section 2(6A)(a).
4. Relevant Case Law:
The court discussed several cases to support its reasoning. It referred to the English case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Fisher's Executors, where the issue of debenture stock was not considered a distribution of profits. The court distinguished this case by emphasizing the nature of the right distributed by Navjivan Mills. The court also discussed the Madras High Court case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. M.P. Viswanatha Rao, where the issuance of deposit certificates was not considered a release of assets. The court noted that in the present case, there was a clear release of assets by Navjivan Mills.
5. Conclusion:
The court concluded that the distribution of the right to apply for shares of the Bank of India by Navjivan Mills Ltd. amounted to a distribution of 'dividend'. The court re-framed the question to reflect the real controversy and answered it in the affirmative, indicating that the distribution was indeed a dividend for tax purposes. The court made no order as to costs.
-
1956 (2) TMI 32
Whether the High Court was correct to set aside the order of the District Judge and order that the said shares should be sold in the open market and that the offer made by Pasavala should be taken as the minimum offer made for the purchase of the shares in question?
Held that:- Having regard, therefore, to all the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order made by the District Judge was right and the High Court was in error when it set it aside and directed that the said 1936 shares should be sold by public auction.
-
1956 (2) TMI 31
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act to associations not for profit.
2. Interpretation of the term "company" under the Indian Companies Act.
3. Validity of resignation and withdrawal of resignation by Hazarimal and Company.
4. Rectification of the register of members of the association.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 38 of the Indian Companies Act to associations not for profit:
The respondents contended that Section 38 of the Companies Act does not apply to associations not for profit, such as the Madras Kirana Merchants' Association, as it has no share capital. The court rejected this argument, stating that the headings and sub-headings in the Act cannot control the plain words of the statute but may explain ambiguous words. The court examined sections under the sub-heading "distribution of share capital" and found that some sections, like Section 28(1) and Section 30, apply to companies without share capital. Therefore, the court concluded that Section 38 can be invoked for associations not for profit.
2. Interpretation of the term "company" under the Indian Companies Act:
The respondents argued that the Madras Kirana Merchants' Association is an association and not a company within the meaning of the Act. They pointed to Section 4 of the Act, suggesting a distinction between a company and an association. The court disagreed, noting that the definition of "company" in Section 2(2) does not exclude associations licensed under Section 26. The court emphasized that an association not for profit, upon registration under Section 26(1), enjoys all the privileges and liabilities of a company, except for three specific exceptions. Thus, the court held that the association is a company within the meaning of the Act.
3. Validity of resignation and withdrawal of resignation by Hazarimal and Company:
The court examined the resignation submitted by Hazarimal and Company through a telegram and a confirming letter, which expressed their intention to resign due to dissatisfaction with the association's conduct. Article 9 of the association's articles of association stipulates that a member's withdrawal takes effect automatically after one month from the notice date. The court found that Hazarimal and Company's resignation took effect automatically after one month, and there was no need for acceptance by the association. The subsequent withdrawal of resignation by Hazarimal and Company was deemed ineffective as they had already ceased to be members.
4. Rectification of the register of members of the association:
The petitioners sought rectification of the register of members to remove Hazarimal and Company's name. The court held that since Hazarimal and Company ceased to be a member after one month from the resignation notice, and they were not re-elected in compliance with the association's rules, their name should be removed from the register. The court emphasized that the discretion under Section 38(2) is not arbitrary and should be exercised to grant relief when the applicant is entitled to it.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition for rectification of the register of members, ordering the removal of Hazarimal and Company's name, and awarded costs to the petitioners.
-
1956 (2) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the call made by the company.
2. Compliance with the Articles of Association.
3. Authority and delegation of powers by the directors.
4. Validity of the notice period.
5. Doctrine of ratification.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Call Made by the Company:
The defendant, a shareholder of the plaintiff company, contested the validity of a call made by the company for Rs. 40 per share on B class shares. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, accepting the defendant's contention that the call was not validly made. The plaintiff company appealed the decision.
2. Compliance with the Articles of Association:
The court examined Articles 18 and 19 of the company's Articles of Association. Article 18 allows directors to make calls and specifies that calls may be payable by instalments. Article 19 states that a call is deemed to be made when the directors pass a resolution authorizing it. The court emphasized that the resolution must specify the amount and the time of payment for it to be valid. The resolutions of March 3, 1948, and June 22, 1948, failed to specify the time for payment, making them invalid. The court also noted that the directors were divided on whether the call should be paid in one sum or by instalments.
3. Authority and Delegation of Powers by the Directors:
The court discussed the authority of the directors to delegate their powers. Article 130 allows directors to confer certain powers to a manager or managing director, but the court found that this did not include the power to make calls, as it is a significant power that cannot be delegated. The court concluded that the manager did not have the authority to finalize and issue the notice for the call.
4. Validity of the Notice Period:
The original resolution required a one-month notice period for the call. The notice given on July 7/9, 1948, required payment of the first instalment by August 5, 1948, which was less than one month. The court found this to be insufficient notice, further invalidating the call.
5. Doctrine of Ratification:
The plaintiff company argued that a resolution passed on September 12, 1949, ratified the notice issued by the manager. The court rejected this argument, stating that an invalid resolution could not be rendered valid by subsequent ratification. The resolution of September 12, 1949, did not even purport to ratify the original resolutions making the call.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the call was not validly made due to the failure to specify the time for payment in the resolutions, the lack of authority for the manager to issue the notice, and the insufficient notice period. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's suit was upheld.
-
1956 (2) TMI 29
Issues:
Validity of assignment under section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras, delivered by Justice Krishnaswami Nayudu, deals with the question of whether an assignment, forming the basis of a suit, is void under section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act. The case involves subscribers in a chit conducted by Commercial Funds Ltd., where the first defendant was the successful bidder in an auction. The plaintiff, not bidding in any auction, was entitled to recover a sum from the Commercial Funds Ltd. The assignment in question was executed by the first defendant in favor of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 650-14-0. At the time of the assignment, winding up proceedings of the company had been initiated and commenced by the Official Receiver, Chingleput. The lower courts held the transaction void due to the commencement of winding up proceedings before the assignment date, in line with the plain language of section 227(2) of the Act.
The appellant contended, citing the decision in Tulsidas Jasraj v. Industrial Bank of Western India, that certain transactions could be excepted from the scope of section 227(2) of the Act. However, the court emphasized that paying a creditor by assigning an asset of the company, particularly after the commencement of winding up proceedings, cannot be considered a bona fide transaction in the ordinary course of business. The court highlighted that the exception mentioned in the cited case pertained to transactions necessary for running a business and conducted bona fide, not for transferring assets to prefer one creditor over another, which is against the Act. The court noted that the plaintiff could have sought the sanction of the company court for such a transaction, and in the absence of such approval, the lower courts' decision declaring the assignment void under section 227(2) was upheld.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the second appeal with costs, emphasizing that the assignment in question was void under section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act due to the initiation of winding up proceedings before the assignment date. The judgment underscores the importance of seeking proper approvals for transactions involving company assets, especially in the context of winding up proceedings, to avoid preferential treatment of creditors and ensure compliance with the law.
-
1956 (2) TMI 5
Whether in the circumstances of the case appeals lay to the Tribunal against orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissing the appeals against the assessments for the years 1945-1946 and 1946-1947 in limine?
Held that:- The question referred must accordingly be answered in the affirmative. This appeal will therefore be allowed, and the order of the Court below set aside.
-
1956 (2) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a firm or a Hindu undivided family can enter into a partnership with other firms or individuals.
2. Whether the application for registration of the firm was valid under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and rule 2 of the Rules framed under section 59 of the Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether a firm or a Hindu undivided family can enter into a partnership with other firms or individuals:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of whether a firm, as such, can be a partner in another firm. The judgment explores the legal definition of a firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 26A of the Income-tax Act postulates the existence of a firm, but does not define it, referring instead to the Indian Partnership Act for definitions.
Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act defines "partnership" as the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. The term "persons" here does not include a firm, as a firm is not recognized as a separate legal entity distinct from its partners. The judgment cites several precedents and legal principles to affirm that a firm is merely an association of individuals and not a "person" in law. Consequently, a firm cannot enter into a partnership with another firm or individuals.
The judgment references the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines "person" to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. However, it concludes that applying this definition to the Partnership Act is repugnant to the subject of partnership law, which does not recognize a firm as a separate legal entity. Thus, the judgment firmly establishes that a firm or a Hindu undivided family cannot enter into a partnership with other firms or individuals.
2. Whether the application for registration of the firm was valid under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and rule 2 of the Rules framed under section 59 of the Act:
The application for registration was made under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, which requires that the firm must be constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners. Rule 2 of the Rules framed under section 59 mandates that the application must be signed personally by all the partners.
The judgment notes that the deed of partnership dated 17th February 1947, specified that the partnership consisted of three firms, one Hindu undivided family business, and one individual. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application on the grounds that a firm or a Hindu undivided family could not enter into a partnership. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had differing views on the validity of the partnership and the application for registration.
The Supreme Court examined whether the shares of all individual partners were specified in the deed and whether all partners had personally signed the application. The deed specified that each of the five constituent parties had an equal share but did not specify the individual shares of each partner in the three smaller firms. Additionally, not all members of those firms had signed the application personally, which is a requirement under section 26A and rule 2.
The judgment concludes that even if the individuals who signed the deed had the authority to do so, the legal requirement is that each partner must sign personally. Since this was not done, the application was not in proper form, leading to the conclusion that the firm could not be registered under section 26A.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Nagpur High Court, answering the referred question in the negative and dismissing the appeal with costs. The judgment reaffirms that a firm or a Hindu undivided family cannot be a partner in another firm, and the application for registration must comply strictly with the requirements of section 26A and rule 2.
-
1956 (2) TMI 3
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income from the sale of milk received by the assessee during the accounting year is not 'agricultural income' within the meaning of the Income-tax Act?
Held that:- The appeal will be allowed and the answer given by the High Court will be set aside. The correct answer to the question referred will be that the income mentioned therein is not agricultural income within the meaning of the Income-tax Act.
-
1956 (2) TMI 2
Whether Chhotelal and Bansilal were partners in the firm, which was constituted on 23rd August, 1940?
Held that:- Whether the question is considered on the principles of Hindu law or on the provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act, there was a change in the personnel of the firm on 17th October, 1944, and the matter falls within section 8(1) of the Act.
The order of the Excess Profits Tax Officer dated 23rd December, 1946, refers in terms to the order dated 28th September, 1946, passed in the proceedings for assessment of income-tax on the appellant, and the deficiency of profits is worked out on the basis of the loss of ₹ 15,771 as ascertained therein. We see no substance in this contention, which must accordingly be rejected.
On the facts as pleaded by the appellant, Chhotelal and Bansilal could not be regarded as partners in the old firm we may add that this contention does not appear to have been put forward before the Commissioner when notice was issued to the appellant under section 20 of the Act. If any such contention had been raised, it would have been open to the Commissioner to have taken action under section 19 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1956 (2) TMI 1
Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was legally competent to direct the Income-tax Officer to register the firm after obtaining the signature of Gokulchand both in the application for registration and in the deed of partnership?
Held that:- The only answer which the High Court could give was that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not legally competent to direct the Income-tax Officer to register the firm after obtaining the signature of Gokulchand both in the application for registration and in the deed of partnership. Rule 2(c) above quoted did not empower the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to do anything of the sort and we are of the opinion that the answer given by the High Court in the negative was, therefore, correct. Appeal dismissed.
|
9911796707
