Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1952 1952 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 24 of 24 Records

• 1952 (9) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ompany who is knowingly and wilfully a party to the default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Thus, two distinct offences are created, viz., a distinct offence for not holding a general body meeting and another offence for not laying the balance-sheet before the company in the general meeting. It is possible to have a general body meeting under section 76 without laying the balance-sheet and a balance-sheet can be laid before a general meeting which need not be one convened under section 76. Therefore, there is no case of the accused being prosecuted twice and punished twice for the same offence and put in double jeopardy. On the other hand, the same transaction may give rise to several distinct offences and the instant case is one such instance. Therefore the point taken fails and there are no other grounds to interfere in revision except to reduce the fine to Rs. 10. The excess fine amount if collected will be refunded to the petitioner.

  ---

• 1952 (9) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Contracts by Company

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Act. We have already held that in the case before us though the asses-see company came into existence almost a year afterwards, the assessment proceedings were started at a time when the assessee company had already decided to accept what had been done on its behalf by the promoters and take over the property and business and the income made therefrom from the 11th of December, 1942, and it was in the same position as a beneficiary for whom the income was earmarked as payable to it. The case is, therefore, to our minds governed by the principle laid down in Trustees of Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust case and the income from the 11th of December, 1942, to 10th of December, 1943, could be legally assessed in the hands of the assessee. The result, therefore, is that we answer the first question in favour of the Department and the second question in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case it is just and proper that the parties should bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1952 (9) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Confiscation, fine and penalty (Customs) - Import trade control

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... customs duty payable on the value of those engines, plus 12.5 per cent of the entire value of those engines, in lieu of the order of confiscation the respondent was entitled to pass under the Act. I am fixing the fine at 12.5 per cent not only because of the equitable circumstances mentioned above, and the legimitate doubt entertainable by ordinary lay-man regarding the admissibility of such import, though not of course by persons well-versed in law, but also because the excess H.P. of the imported engines is only marginal, and represents only a 10 per cent possible margin, and that, therefore a 12 1/2 per cent fine will aptly meet the ends of justice. 14.In the circumstances of this case, the petitioner will pay the entire taxed costs of the respondent, as his main contention that the respondent should be directed to release the engines without fine or penalty and that his order of confiscation was illegal and unjust has egregiously failed. Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 25.

  ---

• 1952 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Adjudication (Customs) - Natural justice - "Adjudged"

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he statements in such bill. Even assuming therefore that it was necessary to give such an option, the petitioner can have no complaint in respect of non-compliance with such provisions. It is only Messrs. Hassanali Bros. who could complain of such non-compliance. 11.The result, therefore, is that the order of the Central Government and of the Board of Revenue and the Customs Collector in so far as it purports to levy a penalty on the petitioner shall be set aside as the penalty was levied without giving any notice to the petitioner. 12.As regards costs, the position is that the petitioner has substantially failed in his petition because the main point urged on his behalf was that the confiscation order was bad. In so far as the order imposed a penalty on the petitioner, it was not seriously sought to be supported on behalf of the respondents at the Bar. In my opinion, therefore, a fair order for costs would be that the petitioner should pay half the costs of the respondents.

  ---

12