Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1956 1956 (12) 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 30 of 30 Records

• 1956 (12) TMI 34 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... start with, the petitioner took advantage of the order of transfer to the fullest extent but later on turned round to say that Shri Kolhe had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. The petitioner s application challenging the validity of the order of assessment passed by Shri Kolhe does not appear to have been made in good faith and indicates his mala fides. In this view of the matter, I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in exercise of the discretionary power vested in this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution. 40.. As the petitions fail on merits, it is not necessary for me to consider the further contentions raised by the opponents, namely, that the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternative remedy and that there should be no interference by this Court for that reason. 41.. The result is that the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with costs. Advocate s fees shall be taxed as Rs. 100. NEVASKAR, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 33 - ASSAM HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ve applied for a writ without exhausting those remedies. In the first place, I am not satisfied that the dealer has not already pursued his appropriate remedies under the law. But even if he had not, an application for a writ is not altogether barred. In appropriate cases, this Court can always interfere by prerogative writs when it finds that manifest injustice is likely to result by unauthorised and unwarranted acts of the taxing authorities purporting to tax under cover of a law, which is ultra vires and in excess of constitutional sanctions. A rule nisi had been already issued by this Court on the facts stated above and when the Court is satisfied on hearing parties that the assessments were quite unauthorised to the extent indicated earlier, the Court will not refuse to interfere and allow that injustice to continue. The application must, therefore, be allowed and appropriate writs issue as prayed for. I make no order as to costs of the application. Application allowed.

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y way of tax within the meaning of section 11 as held in Kunju Moideen Kunju s case 1954 5 S.T.C. 462. But the petitioners case was clear at all stages that it was only as tax that they made the collections at all and the only point raised was that the collections were not made under the Travancore-Cochin Act. 12.. The third ground as to refund already made was not pressed and, therefore, does not arise for consideration. But I should say that the observations in the orders impugned that the petitioners had no right to do this, and if they had done so, they did it at their risk, is certainly wrong. A claim preferred by the person who had paid the amount to the registered dealer would lie against the Government without doubt. If so, an earlier payment over by the registered dealer himself to the rightful claimant would be unobjectionable. 13.. In the result the petition has no merit. It is therefore rejected with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150 (one set only). Petition rejected.

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... scharge so far as the plaintiff is concerned. 4.. As regards the last ground, namely, that the State cannot be made liable for the fraudulent act of the Proverthicar, we are unable to accept the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. The Proverthicar was acting within the scope of his authority, and if he embezzled the money later, the State cannot plead that the payment is not valid so long as it is not alleged or proved that the plaintiff was a party to such fraud. The fraud, if at all, was committed by the Proverthicar after receipt of the amounts and the plaintiff cannot be held liable for the same. In these circumstances, it must be held that the payment of Rs. 1,900 by the plaintiff was a valid payment which must be given credit to by the State. 5.. In the result, the appeal is allowed reversing the decree of the court below and decreeing the suit in terms of the plaint. The appellant will get his costs here and in the court below from the respondent. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 30 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... g under this Act before the Commissioner or any person appointed to assist him under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (XIV of 1860). The language of section 22 also lends support to the view that we have expressed that the power of the Commissioner under section 21 to determine a question is a power of a judicial or quasi judicial character and the determination of a question by the Commissioner in exercise of that power under section 21 is liable to be revised by the Board of Revenue. For these reasons we hold that the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to entertain a petition against the order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax passed under section 21 of the Act We, accordingly, answer the question of law in favour of the petitioner and against the State of Bihar. We assess the hearing fee at Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Winding up - Powers of liquidator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ity. Even otherwise there is a distinction between a set-off claimed by the liquidator and a set-off under the Civil Procedure Code. For while the latter should be of a legally claimable debt, the former need not fulfil that condition. See Thakur Prasad v. Benares Bank 1941 11 Comp Cas 298 . The claim of the bank is therefore allowed to be set off against the claim of the debtor under his staff security. The claim will therefore be removed from the list but the defendant will be entitled to proceed only for balance after set-off against the claim herein. No costs.

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Transfer of Shares – Power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal and Directors - Power of

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  General provisions with respect to memorandum and articles - Effect of memorandum and articles, Directors – Power of

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Articles of association - Regulations required in case of unlimited company, company limited by guarantee or private company limited by shares, General provisions with respect to memorandum and articles - Effect of memorandum and articles and Managing director – Tenure of appointment

  ---

• 1956 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether section 5(7A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, hereinafter called the Act, is ultra vires the Constitution as infringing the fundamental rights enshrined in article 14 and article 19(1)(g)?

  Held that:- Section 5(7A) of the Act is not violative of article 14 of the Constitution and also does not impose any unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade or business enshrined in article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. If there is any abuse of power it can be remedied by appropriate action either under article 226 or under article 32 of the Constitution and what can be struck down is not the provision contained in section 5(7A) of the Act but the order passed thereunder which may be mala fide or violative of these fundamental rights. This challenge of the vires of section 5(7A) of the Act, therefore, fails. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

12