Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1951 1951 (11) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 23 of 23 Records
-
1951 (11) TMI 7
... ... ... ... ..... ed as a broker and his remuneration as brokerage. At any rate, the view urged by counsel on both sides that a person, acting as a broker and recovering only his brokerage, is not a dealer is correct. 3.. The appellant, not being a dealer, according to his own state- ments and pleadings, was not competent to make an application under Rule 25. The dismissal of an application so made is, therefore, in order. I would note, however, that the appellant is not without a remedy, if the facts stated by him and on his behalf are correct. He could ask for cancellation of his registration certificate and upon cancellation he should get the relief he has desired. If, however, the facts stated by him and pleadings made on his behalf are not correct, we revert to the position as determined by the Sales Tax Commissioner. In either case, there is no reason for interference in appeal with the order of the learned Commissioner dismissing the application made under Rule 25. Ordered accordingly.
-
1951 (11) TMI 6
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... upta invited our attention to para. 7 of the petition of the decreeholder dated 16th January, 1950, in which it is stated that certain payments were made by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. Mr. Gupta s argument is that having made the payment, the judgment-debtor has waived the terms of the scheme which had given certain privileges to the judgment-debtor against whom decrees had been passed. This contention is clearly untenable. A judgment-debtor, if he wishes to pay earlier than the date prescribed by the sanctioned scheme, is not prevented from doing so. Such a payment cannot be regarded as a waiver. The result is that the appeal succeeds. In the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. The order of the learned subordinate Judge ordering the execution to proceed is set aside. We wish to point out that the scheme which has been sanctioned by this court lays down the terms by which decrees exceeding Rs. 260 are to be enforced. Deka, J. mdash I agree.
-
1951 (11) TMI 1
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation at the end of the year 1938-39, which was not given effect to, in the subsequent years, could not be treated as part of the allowable depreciation for the relevant assessment years which are assessment years 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44?
Held that:- The section provides that in order to enable the unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward to the succeeding year, it must be shown that full effect was not given in the previous year, owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for the year, or, owing to the profits or gains chargeable being less ,than the allowance. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that in the present case full effect could not be given to the unabsorbed depreciation not for the reasons stated in the section but on account of the failure of the assessee to take the matter in appeal against the assessment for 1940-41. In our opinion, this view is based on a misreading of the section. The words used in the section are :--" where full effect cannot be given ", and not "where full effect has not been given." It is not denied that the profits or gains were less than the depreciation allowance, and that being so the requirements of the section were satisfied.
In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court on the limited question referred to it is correct, and we accordingly dismiss this appeal
|
|