Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1957 1957 (1) 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 41 to 45 of 45 Records

• 1957 (1) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ever challenged. What was challenged was the competence of the Sales Tax Authorities to levy the tax relying upon that proviso. We, therefore, reframe the question as follows Whether the levy of sales tax under proviso (b) to rule I(ii) under sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 (V of 1946), on Rs. 30,712-12-6 paid by the assessees for the purchase of goods despatched to Madras is valid in law? We answer the question in the affirmative. The assessees will pay the costs of this reference to the State. Civil Reference No. 30 of 1956. This reference is companion to Reference No. 20 of 1956 and raises the identical question which was sought to be raised in that reference. No additional arguments have been advanced before us and for reasons mentioned by me in the judgment in the other reference we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. The assessees will pay the costs of the State of this hearing before me. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n whether the assessees could be regarded as dealers must be deemed to have been decided by us. If hereafter any notice is issued upon the assessees with regard to tax payable by them for the period subsequent to 31st March, 1954, any observations made by us about the status of the assessees will not be regarded as decisive of their status. We may also observe that we have given our opinion only on the admitted statement of facts and the legal effect of the four documents produced before the Collector and on no other statement of facts. The question referred to us by the Tribunal will be answered in the negative. We hold that the assessees are not dealers within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1946, or of section 2(6) of the Sales Tax Act, 1953, for the two periods between 1st April, 1951, and 31st October, 1952, and between 1st November, 1952, and 31st March, 1954. The Collector of Sales Tax to pay the costs of this hearing. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Charges – Registration of, Winding up – Fraudulent preference To and Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Winding up – Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ased on the award could not be upheld because the assets of the company should be made available for distribution pari passu amongst the creditors of the company and no creditor should be permitted to obtain an advantage over his fellow creditors merely because he came to know earlier of the embarrassed financial position of the company or had some influence on those in charge of its management. It was suggested that those parts of the award and decree could be upheld which clearly only dealt with the assets of the firm, but, in my opinion, the award and decree cannot be split up in this manner, and according to the direction of the learned District Judge it may be still open to Durga Das Nayyar to prove that he is a preferential creditor in respect of at least part of his claims. In my opinion, the matter has been properly decided by the learned District Judge and his direction is quite fair to all concerned. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 50.

  ---

• 1957 (1) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Annual Return – Penalty for not filing

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that these various directors were mere figureheads not taking any active part in the control of the company is, in my opinion, not worthy of serious consideration. They were directors, they attended meetings throughout the period with which we are concerned and they were responsible for the management of the company. But these provisions of the Companies Act have been deliberately enacted to protect shareholders and in some cases to protect the general public and they impose a definite duty upon directors. It is necessary that those duties should be properly carried out and it is necessary, in my opinion, that when directors fail to do so, the penalties provided for in the Act should be imposed and the directors should be substantially penalised. rdquo The convictions are correct and they are confirmed. Having regard to the extenuating circumstances pressed by Mr. Srirangachariar the fines and default sentences are halved and the excess fines, if collected, will be refunded.

  ---

123