Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1951 1951 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 29 of 29 Records

• 1951 (1) TMI 28
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Sections 2(b), 9, and 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
  2. Liability of a partner for the firm's default in tax payment.
  3. Prosecution of an individual partner when the firm is the defaulter.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Sections 2(b), 9, and 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It was established that a firm is considered a person under Section 2(b) of the Act. Section 9 mandates that every dealer with a turnover of ten thousand rupees or more must submit returns, and non-compliance can lead to assessment by the authority. Section 15 outlines penalties for various offenses, including failure to pay assessed tax. A combined reading of these sections clarified that a firm is treated as one entity for assessment and prosecution purposes.
  
  2. The case raised the issue of the liability of a partner for the firm's default in tax payment. The accused, a partner in a firm, was prosecuted for contravening Section 15(a) of the Act. However, the judgment emphasized that the firm, as a legal person, should have been prosecuted for the offense since the default was attributed to the firm. The court highlighted that the partner, on whom no notice was served, could not be held personally liable for the firm's default, especially when the proper procedure was not followed.
  
  3. The judgment addressed the question of prosecuting an individual partner when the firm is the defaulter. It was noted that the notice for tax payment was issued to the firm, and the assessment was made on the firm itself. Despite this, one partner was prosecuted in his personal capacity, contrary to the legal framework that treats the firm as a separate legal entity. The court distinguished this case from previous judgments where all partners were accused, emphasizing that in this instance, the firm should have been the accused party. Consequently, the order of acquittal for the individual partner was upheld, dismissing the appeal made by the Public Prosecutor.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 27
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941
  2. Assessment of registered dealers based on best judgment
  3. Appeal process before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
  4. Review by the Board of Revenue
  5. Referral to the High Court under Section 21(1) of the Act
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which is similar to Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The main issue presented for consideration was whether the assessments made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, after allowing deductions, were conducted to the best of their respective judgments. The case involved registered dealers who failed to file returns for two quarters and were subsequently assessed by the Assistant Commissioner to the best of his judgment. The applicants appealed this assessment before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who reduced the taxable turnover percentage from 10% to 7.5% for the relevant quarters. The Commissioner's decision was then upheld by the Board of Revenue.
  
  The applicants contended that the taxable turnover determined by the authorities was too high, but failed to provide concrete evidence or materials to support their claim. The Board of Revenue, after hearing the applicants, decided to refer only one question to the High Court, seeking clarification on the correctness of the assessments made. The applicants argued that the tax authorities had not considered all relevant materials in arriving at the assessment figures, challenging the best judgment principle applied in the assessment process.
  
  The High Court, in its analysis, referred to the principles laid down by the Privy Council regarding best judgment assessments, emphasizing that the assessing officer must make a fair and honest estimate based on available information. The Court noted that the tax authorities had provided the applicants with ample opportunity to present their case and had duly recorded the reasons for their decisions. The Court further highlighted that the authorities had considered all available materials and had not acted dishonestly or vindictively in making the assessments.
  
  The Court concluded that even if the authorities' assessments were incorrect, there was no evidence to suggest dishonesty or capriciousness in their actions. Therefore, the Court held that the tax authorities had applied their minds and made genuine efforts to arrive at a correct conclusion. As a result, the question posed in the reference was answered in the affirmative, affirming the assessments made by the tax authorities.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 26
  
  Issues:
  1. Dispute over the holding of an extraordinary general meeting of a company.
  2. Allegations of irregularities in the appointment and exclusion of a director.
  3. Dispute regarding the validity of resolutions passed by the board of directors.
  4. Legal interpretation of the term "impracticable" in the context of calling a meeting under section 79(3) of the Companies Act.
  5. Applicability of section 78(3) in the context of shareholders calling a meeting.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment revolves around a dispute concerning the convening of an extraordinary general meeting of a company due to conflicts between shareholders and directors. The court was approached under section 79(3) of the Indian Companies Act to resolve the issue of impracticability in holding the meeting as per the usual procedures.
  
  2. The case involved a director, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, whose appointment was challenged by other directors leading to his exclusion from the board. Disputes arose regarding the validity of his share transfer and qualification as a director, resulting in legal actions and conflicting claims regarding his status within the company.
  
  3. The contesting respondents challenged the legality of resolutions passed by the board during the period of dispute, claiming that Mr. Roy Chowdhury was wrongfully excluded and that subsequent actions of the board were invalid. This led to multiple lawsuits seeking declarations and injunctions related to the board's decisions.
  
  4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of the term "impracticable" in the context of calling a meeting under section 79(3) of the Companies Act. The court considered the practicality and potential consequences of convening a meeting amidst ongoing disputes and litigation, emphasizing the need to avoid further complications and conflicts.
  
  5. The applicability of section 78(3) regarding shareholders' right to requisition a meeting was also debated, particularly in the absence of a valid board of directors to respond to such requisitions. The argument focused on whether the shareholders could call a meeting independently in the absence of a functioning board.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to order the convening of an extraordinary general meeting due to the impracticability and potential complications associated with the shareholders independently calling a meeting. The legal complexities surrounding director appointments, shareholder disputes, and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Companies Act were thoroughly analyzed and addressed in the judgment.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 23
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the appellant's application for shares.
  2. Validity of the allotment of shares to the appellant.
  3. Applicability of Section 101 of the Indian Companies Act to private companies.
  4. The doctrine of holding out and its implications.
  5. The effect of delay in seeking rectification of the share register.
  6. The impact of the company's resolution dated 15th June, 1947, regarding forfeiture of shares.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the appellant's application for shares:
  The appellant admitted signing an application for five shares of Rs. 1,000 each in Sri Films Ltd. on 31st March, 1946. However, he contended that he did so nominally and without any intention of taking any shares, merely to lend prestige to the company. The appellant argued that there was no valid application as he did not remit any amount with the application, which he claimed was required under section 101(3) of the Indian Companies Act. The court found that this contention was not raised before Mack, J., and noted that section 101, which applies only to public companies, was not applicable to the private company in question.
  
  2. Validity of the allotment of shares to the appellant:
  The appellant argued that there was no valid acceptance of his application and no valid allotment of shares by resolution of the company or the directors. He cited several rulings to support his position that the mere entry of shares in the register of shareholders does not constitute proof of a valid allotment. The court found that the managing agent had the power to allot shares and that there was no need to produce an order of allotment to validate the entry in the register. The court also noted that the liability of a member to be included in the list of contributories arises by reason of their name appearing on the register of members, not by the validity of the allotment.
  
  3. Applicability of Section 101 of the Indian Companies Act to private companies:
  The appellant's argument that section 101(1) to (6) should apply to private companies was rejected. The court clarified that section 101 expressly applies only to public companies, and the exclusion of sub-section (7) for private companies did not imply the applicability of the other sub-sections to private companies.
  
  4. The doctrine of holding out and its implications:
  The court held that even if there was no valid allotment, the appellant was liable under the doctrine of holding out. This doctrine states that if a person's name is on the register with their consent and they delay in exercising their right to have it removed, they forfeit that right. The court cited authoritative texts and rulings, including a Privy Council decision, to support this position. The appellant's knowledge and inaction for over three years were deemed sufficient to hold him liable.
  
  5. The effect of delay in seeking rectification of the share register:
  The court emphasized that the appellant's delay in seeking rectification of the register was fatal to his case. The court referenced Gentle, J.'s ruling that prompt action is required to remove one's name from the register if there are grounds to do so. The appellant's delay of more than three years, coupled with his knowledge of being held out as a shareholder, precluded him from contesting his liability.
  
  6. The impact of the company's resolution dated 15th June, 1947, regarding forfeiture of shares:
  The appellant argued that his shares should have been forfeited and his name removed from the register based on the company's resolution. The court found that the shares were not actually forfeited and that the company continued to treat the appellant as a shareholder. The court agreed with Gentle, J.'s ruling that the appellant could not object to being included in the list of contributories based on the unexecuted resolution.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the appellant's inclusion in the list of contributories for Rs. 5,000 in respect of his five shares. The court found that the appellant's arguments lacked merit and that his liability was established by his name appearing on the register of members and his failure to act promptly to rectify it.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 22
  
  The High Court of Madras ruled that the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property in Madras had no jurisdiction to declare a public limited company in Calcutta as evacuee property. The Custodian's order confirming this decision was also deemed incorrect, as properties belonging to a company registered in Calcutta could not be taken over in Madras. The Custodian's order to refund non-evacuee shareholders and prohibit them from conducting business in the district was considered unauthorized, leading to the quashing of the order. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 21
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the directors of the respondent company had a controlling interest as contemplated by section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
  2. Validity of Article 90 of the Articles of Association under the Indian Companies Act.
  3. Validity of the power-of-attorney given to Mr. Bash by Aluminium, Ltd.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Controlling Interest under Section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act:
  The primary issue was whether the respondent company was a director-controlled company within the meaning of section 2(21) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The section defines "statutory percentage" for businesses carried on by bodies corporate, distinguishing between those where directors have a controlling interest (10% per annum) and those where they do not (8% per annum). The respondent company had a capital structure where M/s. Aluminium Ltd. held the majority of shares, and Mr. Bash, as a director, was empowered to vote on behalf of Aluminium Ltd. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially held that Mr. Bash acted as an agent of Aluminium Ltd., not as a director of the respondent company, thus it was not director-controlled. However, the Tribunal found that Mr. Bash's power-of-attorney from Aluminium Ltd. meant the company was director-controlled. The High Court affirmed this view, referencing the House of Lords' decisions in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. J Bibby & Sons Ltd. and F.A. Clark & Sons, Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which established that "controlling interest" pertains to the power to control company decisions through voting, irrespective of beneficial ownership.
  
  2. Validity of Article 90 of the Articles of Association:
  Dr. S.K. Gupta for the Commissioner argued that Article 90, which allowed a representative of a company to vote at meetings, was ultra vires the Indian Companies Act, specifically section 80. Section 80 permits a company to authorize representatives to act at meetings, but Aluminium Ltd. was not incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, making section 80 inapplicable. Despite this, the Court held that Aluminium Ltd. could still grant a power-of-attorney to Mr. Bash because a corporation must act through human agents. The Court noted that this form of power-of-attorney is recognized in legal precedents and forms.
  
  3. Validity of the Power-of-Attorney:
  The argument that the power-of-attorney given to Mr. Bash was invalid was not raised before the Tribunal, and thus could not be considered by the High Court. The Court emphasized that mandamus principles require that issues must be raised before the Tribunal to be considered in a reference. The applicant had proceeded on the basis that the power was valid at all lower levels of adjudication. Consequently, the High Court declined to entertain the argument of invalidity at this stage.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court concluded that the respondent company was indeed a director-controlled company, with Mr. Bash having a controlling interest through his power-of-attorney from Aluminium Ltd. This interpretation aligns with the broader legal understanding of "controlling interest" as the power to influence company decisions through voting, regardless of beneficial ownership. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding the invalidity of Article 90 and the power-of-attorney, as these points were not raised before the Tribunal. The answer to the reference question was in the affirmative, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 20
  
  Issues:
  - Appointment of an independent chairman for the annual general meeting.
  - Validity of the chairman elected by the board of directors.
  - Disputes among shareholders.
  - Court's jurisdiction to appoint a chairman for the meeting.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment concerns an appeal against an order directing the directors of a company to hold an annual general meeting. The appellant, a shareholder, sought the appointment of an independent chairman for the meeting. The court noted that while the company's articles specified the chairman of the board of directors to preside, no valid election or regulations were in place. The court highlighted the lack of a permanent chairman and the presence of factions among shareholders, indicating the need for an independent chairman. The court found that the appointment of a chairman by the court was within its jurisdiction, as supported by relevant legal provisions.
  
  The court acknowledged an extraordinary meeting held earlier and refrained from commenting on its proceedings. However, it noted objections raised regarding the rejection of proxies by the chairman nominated by the company. Emphasizing the importance of electing directors as a significant agenda item, the court deemed it necessary for an independent chairman to oversee the meeting. The respondent objected to court intervention in appointing a chairman, but the court justified its authority under relevant statutory provisions allowing for directions on meeting conduct.
  
  In modifying the lower court's order, the High Court directed the appointment of an advocate as the chairman for the meeting. The appointed advocate would preside over the meeting and scrutinize the proxies deposited in accordance with the company's Articles of Association. This decision aimed to ensure fair and impartial conduct of the meeting, considering the contentious issues and lack of a validly elected chairman within the company.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 19
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the closure of the Mills and its classification as a lock-out.
  2. Status of the workers after the debenture trustees took possession.
  3. Applicability of Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act.
  4. Authority to question the award of the industrial tribunal.
  5. Priority of workers' wages under Section 230 of the Indian Companies Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the closure of the Mills and its classification as a lock-out:
  The industrial tribunal held that the closure of the Mills from 24th May, 1947, was unwarranted and amounted to a lock-out, which must be deemed to be an illegal lock-out. This conclusion was based on the pendency of a dispute between the workers and the management of the Mills, which had been referred to the tribunal by the Government. The tribunal's award was declared binding by the Government under section 15, sub-section (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 5th September, 1947.
  
  2. Status of the workers after the debenture trustees took possession:
  The appellant contended that from 14th February, 1947, when the debenture trustees took possession of the mortgaged premises and began to carry on the business, there was a change in personality, and the workers could no longer be deemed to be the workers of the company. However, this contention was opposed to the actual facts, as the trustees carried on the business of the company only in pursuance of an agreement to work the Mills "at the risk and on account of the company." The court held that even if the debenture trustees had exercised their right to carry on the business, the company would not cease to exist as a legal entity, and the business would continue to be the business of the company.
  
  3. Applicability of Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act:
  The appellant argued that the declaration by the Government under section 15 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act required leave of the court under section 171 of the Indian Companies Act. The court found no substance in this contention, stating that the declaration by the Government was not a "legal proceeding" but a mere mechanical administrative act. The adjudication by the tribunal was the final determination of the dispute, and the Government's declaration was automatic and mandatory.
  
  4. Authority to question the award of the industrial tribunal:
  The appellant sought to attack the award on its merits, but the court held that section 15, sub-section (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act expressly states that an award declared to be binding shall not be called in question in any manner. The court emphasized that the Official Liquidator cannot examine the correctness of the adjudication of the industrial tribunal in the absence of fraud or collusion. The court also noted that there was no miscarriage of justice in the tribunal's award.
  
  5. Priority of workers' wages under Section 230 of the Indian Companies Act:
  The learned Judge allowed priority for the workers' wages for two months prior to the winding up order under section 230 (1)(c) of the Indian Companies Act. The appellant argued that the workmen did not render any service during that period as the Mills had been closed. The court held that the right of priority is not lost in cases of an illegal lock-out, illness, or the employer's inability to pay salary, as established in English law. Therefore, the court agreed with the learned Judge in allowing priority for the workers' wages.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court upheld the award of the industrial tribunal, the status of the workers, the applicability of Section 171, and the priority of workers' wages under Section 230 of the Indian Companies Act.

  ---

• 1951 (1) TMI 1
  

  Whether petitioner has been denied the fundamental right of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws guaranteed to him by Article 14 of the Constitution.?

  Held that:- The discrimination, if any, was not brought about by the two Ordinances, but by the circumstance that there was no Income-tax Act in Nabha and consequently there was no case of assessment pending against any Nabha assessees. In any case the provision that pending proceedings should be concluded according to the law applicable at the time when the rights or liabilities accrued and the proceedings commenced is a reasonable law founded upon a reasonable classification of the assessees which is permissible under the equal protection clause and to which no exception can be taken. In our opinion the grievance of the alleged infringement of fundamental right under Article 14 is not well founded at all.

  The protection against imposition or collection of taxes save by authority of law is secured by Article 265 and not by Article 31(1), the questions urged by Dr. Tek Chand do not really arise and it is not necessary to express any opinion on them on this application. Those questions can only arise in appropriate proceedings and not on an application under Article 32. In our judgment this application fails on the simple ground that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed either under Article 14 or under Article 31(1) and we accordingly dismiss the petition.

  ---

12