|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 374 of 374 Records
-
1955 (1) TMI 37 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... came to be disposed of, the instalments due up to that date were completely paid and, if necessary, would have excused the delay in filing the appeal. In the view we expressed, viz., that the word "tax" in the proviso means the tax due, no question of jurisdiction arises, for the entire tax due was paid. If at all, there was irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, which, if pointed out in time, could have been rectified. The IT authorities, not having raised that objection and allowed the appeal to be disposed of on merits, it is not open to them to contend for the first time before the Tribunal that the appeal should have been dismissed on the ground that it was filed after the prescribed time. In this view also, the appeal before the Asst. Commissioner was maintainable. (7.) IN the result, we answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. The respondent will pay the costs of the assessee which is fixed at ₹ 250.
-
1955 (1) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rded. Any contract between the assessee firm and its employees does not take away the right of the Excess Profits Tax Officer to consider the question of the reasonableness of the payment under Section 10 (2) (x), Income-tax Act or Rule 12, Schedule I, Excess Profits Tax Act, but the mere fact that it was a voluntary payment does not by itself make it either unreasonable or unnecessary. The decision has to be made by the Excess Profits Tax Officer with reference to all the facts and circumstances and in accordance with the exigencies of the business. He must take note of all such other matters as businessmen would generally take into consideration in coming to the conclusion whether a particular bonus or commission should or should not be paid having regard to the requirements of the business and the services rendered by the employees. That is our answer to the second question. 39. The assessee should get its costs of this reference which we assess at a sum of ₹ 500/-.
-
1955 (1) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ants in Mahboob's suit. As the suit is one for distribution or partition of the personal estate of the late Nawab, each one of the parties to it, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, is entitled in law to pray for determination of his or her claim to a share in the properties. Thus Quadiran Bibi will be at liberty to raise the question of the validity of her marriage with the late Nawab and the legitimacy of her children in the written statement filed or to be filed on behalf of herself or her children and these questions will be decided by the Court and a comprehensive decree for distribution of the 'matrooka' left by the Nawab will be passed by it granting reliefs to the several parties in accordance with the findings which the court might arrive at. 26. Subject to the directions mentioned above, the appeals will be allowed and the execution proceedings will stand dismissed. There will be no order for costs in favour of any of the parties to the present appeals.
-
1955 (1) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of appeal is not conferred against the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 18A any wrong order of his made under the rules cannot be corrected or otherwise modified. But the rules were only made on 14th December, 1953, i.e., long after the order imposing penal interest was made in the instant case. Further, as we have already stated, such considerations cannot override the express provisions of the statute. A similar question was raised in Deo Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. wherein the learned Judges held that no appeal lies under section 30(1) against an order of an Income-tax Officer under section 18A(6) of the Act. It is true that there is no discussion of the point raised in the judgment but we respectfully agree with the conclusion of the learned Judges. We, therefore, answer in the negative the question propounded for our decision. The petitioner will pay the respondent's costs which we fix at ₹ 250. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1955 (1) TMI 33 - PRIVY COUNCIL
... ...
... ... ..... case before their Lordships over 51 per cent. of the voting power was held by the respondent, a single individual, and consequently the question does not arise. Their Lordships express no opinion upon the questions which would arise when the requisite percentage is not held by a single individual but only by a group, or by overlapping groups, of individuals. The appellant also argued that neither the respondent nor Sverre could be regarded as members of the public as they were directors of the company. It is clear that members of the public within the meaning of the section are shareholders in the company. Their Lordships can find no reason for holding that shareholders cease to be members of the public because they have become directors. For the reasons which they have given their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal be dismissed. The appellant must pay the respondent the costs of this appeal. Solicitors Charles Russell and Co. Hale, Ringrose and Morrow.
-
1955 (1) TMI 32 - WEST BENGAL HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ld that in cases of doubt of this nature the criterion should be whether a commodity covered by the exception clauses is identifiable as such under the name in which it appears in the Schedule of exceptions and whether it sells as such in the market. Now there can be no doubt that biscuits are not cakes nor are they pastries or sweetmeats though they are prepared more or less in the same way as cakes and pastries as well as bread. No one will accept biscuits from a dealer when he asks for cakes or pastries and vice versa. The result is that biscuits cannot be held to come under the exception mentioned in item No. 7, viz., cakes, pastries and sweetmeats. In other words, biscuits are like any other kind of cooked food, the sale of which is exempted from sales tax, except when sold in sealed containers. The petition is allowed. The assessment should be revised, leaving out of the taxable turnover the sale of all biscuits except those sold in sealed containers. Petition allowed.
-
1955 (1) TMI 31 - WEST BENGAL HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e that the sales of only such parts are taxed and that they are shown separately in the books of accounts of watch repairers etc. The petition is allowed in part, viz., that in respect of assessability to tax of charges on account of oiling, cleaning and repairing of watches etc., the assessment should be revised accordingly, the tax being levied only on the sale of spare parts of assessable value. It is regrettable that the learned Additional Commissioner of Com- mercial Taxes who has the same authority as that of the Commissioner himself should go against the law and against the known decisions of the Board of Revenue in such a manner. This has resulted in unnecessary expense and harassment to the party and unnecessary work to all con- cerned, including the Board of Revenue. I trust this sort of thing will not recur in future. A copy of this order should be sent to the Fin- ance (Taxation) Department of the Government of West Bengal for their information. Petition allowed.
-
1955 (1) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate-General has failed to convince me that the rules which provide for an advance provisional assessment and levy are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. In this view, it is not necessary to deal with the other alternative ground, namely, that if it be assumed that the Legislature has delegated to the Government the power to make rules even inconsistent with and beyond the provisions of the Act, then such delegation of legislative power is unconstitutional and invalid. It follows from our finding above that the demand from the peti- tioner of the provisional advance tax for the three months was invalid as the rules under which such a demand was made are themselves ultra vires. The petitioner therefore was not guilty of an offence under sec- tion, 15(b) of the Act. I therefore allow the revision petition, and set aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. Petition allowed. (1) 292 U.S. 86 78 L. Ed. 1141 at 1148.
-
1955 (1) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ngalvaraya Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Madras(1), S.M.S. Karuppiah Pillai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(2) and Income Tax Commissioners for City of London v. Gibbs(3). The facts of these cases were very different, but reliance was placed on observations made to the effect that the firm was an entity by itself for purposes of assessment and was distinct from the partners. Those observations have to be read in connection with the facts of those cases. I do not find in any of these cases any observation, which would go to show that an assessment cannot be made after the firm has been dis- solved or that the tax cannot be recovered, after the dissolution of the firm, from the partners who were the partners in the firm during the period for which the tax has been assessed. For the reasons given above, I do not see any force in this petition and dismiss it with costs. Petition dismissed. (1) 1937 5 I.T.R. 70. (3) 1942 10 I.T.R. Suppl. 121. (2) 1941 9 I.T.R. 1.
-
1955 (1) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation does not in any way trench upon the provi- sions of the Sale of Goods Act. We wish to follow the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Louis Dreyfus and Co. v. State of Madras(1) in preference to the decision in Shriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh(2). In view of our conclusions that the explanation is intra vires, T.R.C. Nos. 271, 272, 283 and 333 of 1953 fail. In T.R.C. Nos. 344, 348 and 364 of 1953, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal exempted the transactions subsequent to 26th January, 1950, and the Revisions relate only for the period from 1st April, 1949, to 26th January, 1950, and they also stand dismissed. As no Revision Petitions have been filed by the State for the period from 26th January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950, it is unnecessary for us to consider the effect of our decision in T.R.C. Nos. 83, 273, 284, 285, 148 and 192 of 1953. Petitions dismissed. (1) 1954 5 S.T.C. 307 1954 2 M.L.J. 326. (2) 1952 3 S.T.C. 343 A.I.R. 1952 Nag. 378.
-
1955 (1) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF APPEAL
Right to present winding-up petition where company is being wound-up voluntarily or subject to courts supervision
-
1955 (1) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... o hours would have been sufficient to take inspection of this account. It is not as if accounts had been written for a number of years and detailed accounts had to be gone through. Therefore, I overrule the objection set out on behalf of the respondent that section 235 is inapplicable. This proceeding to my mind is properly brought under this section. In the result I will proceed with this matter and hear evidence if produced before me. Parties will treat the affidavit in support and the affidavit in reply as pleadings in the matter. Liberty to the liquidator to file an affidavit in rejoinder, if so advised, and if that is filed within 3 weeks, liberty to the respondent to file an affidavit in sub-rejoinder. Usual order for discovery and inspection. Discovery and inspection to be given and completed within 4 weeks from to day. The proceeding to be on my board on March 28, 1955. Summons to stand adjourned into court. Today s costs to be costs in the summons. Counsel certified.
-
1955 (1) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Overriding preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... m of Rs. 3,01,397-4-3 is held by the company for a specific purpose in the nature of a trust for the benefit of the applicant firm and itself and in lieu of the order for payment made by the learned Judge it is ordered that the applicant firm will be entitled to repayment of the aforesaid sum out of the entire assets of the company, less such sum, if any, as may be found due from it to the company on account of transactions had under the agreement. Upon the amount due to the applicant firm being determined, it will be entitled to apply to the court for the payment of such amount within six weeks from the date of such determination. The rest of the order of the learned Judge will stand. There will be no order for costs in this appeal, but the official liquidators shall be entitled to retain and pay their own costs of this appeal as well as other costs, if any, ordered to be made costs in the appeal as between attorney and client out of the assets of the company in their hands.
-
1955 (1) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... toola v. Appabhai G. Desai 1950 20 Comp. Cas. 8 , where Chagla, C.J. observed mdash The official liquidator took up the attitude that orders for public examinations under section 196 can be made ex parte. We wish to make it clear that in our opinion that would not be a sound practice for the court to adopt. Although the matter there was under section 196 of the Companies Act, in my opinion it is a sound principle which should be followed in regard to the making of payment orders. This seems to be supported by the wording of section 186 of the Companies Act which gives power to the court to make the payment orders. I would therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and remand the case to the learned District Judge for decision in accordance with law and the observations made above. The parties have been directed to appear before the District Judge on the nth February, 1955. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
....
|
