|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 44 Records
-
1966 (7) TMI 57
Officer who is in default – Meaning of, Company – Incorporation of, Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet
-
1966 (7) TMI 49
Ascertainment of directors retiring by rotation and filling up vacancies ... ... ... ... ..... irmed by Sisir Ranjan Sengupta on the 9th June, 1966, an objection had been taken in paragraph 3 with regard to the maintainability of the action by the company. Mr. A. K. Sen, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of Sisir Ranjan Sengupta, stated that as no application has been made for striking out the name of the company, he was unable to press the said objection and the said objection was not pressed. In my view there cannot be any dispute with regard to the principle laid down in the case of Walker rsquo s case (supra), but the principle laid down therein and the passage at page 61 of the said report, relied on by the counsel for the petitioners which I have already quoted, have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For reasons hereinbefore stated I am of the opinion that this application has no merits and must be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss this application with costs and I direct that all ad interim orders made will stand vacated.
-
1966 (7) TMI 41
Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet ... ... ... ... ..... of the accounts by the auditors but the question of audit by auditors will come up after the directors have prepared the balance-sheet. Then again the papers up to June, 1957, were seized by the police. It is nobody s case that the business of the company is not being carried on. In any event, the company is still on the register of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and, so long as it is there, the duty of placing the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account before the annual general meeting and of filing a copy thereof with the Registrar will be there. It is a finding of the learned Magistrate that the annual general meetings were held during the years 1957 to 1961 and that the annual returns of the company were also filed duly with the Registrar during the concerned years. In these circumstances, I cannot find that there was a good case for giving relief to the directors from their liability in the matter. In the result, all these eighteen rules stand discharged.
-
1966 (7) TMI 40
Directors - Power of ... ... ... ... ..... d his friend were no longer prepared to risk their property in the company. Their property in the company consists of the shares held by them. If the averments in the petition were true, these shares would be worth very little, and, in any event, not more than their face value. Members who were opposed to the winding up offered to buy the shares of both the petitioner and his friend at twice their face value. This offer was rejected by the petitioner who demanded three times the face value, accompanying the demand with a counter offer to buy the shares of the members who were opposed to the winding up at the same price. This winding up petition, it seems fairly obvious, is an abuse of the process of the court, being designed for the purpose of putting pressure, so as to gain control over the affairs of the company. I dismiss the petition with costs. This, of course, means that the injunction granted in application No. 507 of 1965 is no longer in force. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1966 (7) TMI 39
Penalty for false statements ... ... ... ... ..... se be defeated that mens rea may, by necessary implication, be excluded from a statute. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof. The learned judges would observe that even if the legislation in question is one to eradicate the social evil, the foundation of penal responsibility attaching itself to the crime cannot change and the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that without mens rea or the guilty mind being proved against the accused, he cannot be visited with a punishment. So also in the present case, the burden was on the complainant to show that the alleged statement in the balance-sheet was made with the dishonest intention of making a wrongful gain or to deceive the public. No such element has evidently been proved in the case. In the circumstances, the accused have rightly been acquitted. The order of acquittal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1966 (7) TMI 19
Natural Justice - Cross-examination ... ... ... ... ..... nd of denial of natural justice to the petitioner. 24.It was also contended before me that the respondent No. 1 was wrong in confiscating the 15 tons of dunnage wood covered by permission along with the excess quantity of goods seized. This point in this form was not taken in the grounds. I do not therefore decide the point. 25.In the view that I take, I made the Rule absolute and quash the impugned order. Let a Writ of Certiorari accordingly issue. Since I quash the order on account of procedural defect, I grant liberty to respondent Customs authorities to proceed afresh from the stage reached after the enquiry held on January 6, 1961. They must call such witnesses as the petitioner desires to examine and also give him facilities to cross-examine such persons, whose statements are intended to be used against him. The petitioner will also be at liberty to take such points as he intends to take before the Customs authorities, including the points I have left open in this case.
-
1966 (7) TMI 18
Partnership - Liability to duty - Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... the statement of the Department is that Gopalakrishna and Company and Balaji and Company should be taken to run the sum total of powerlooms possessed by both the companies. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, this contention cannot be accepted. The two demand notices are not, therefore, according to law, and the consequential order of detention cannot also be supported. 8. In the result, Writ Petition No. 734/64 for the issue of a writ of certiorari is allowed and the order of detention is quashed. In view of the order in Writ Petition 734/64, no orders are necessary in Writ Petition No. 735 of 1964. Writ Petition 3180/65 is allowed. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3181/65 is the purchaser of 42 looms from Janakiram Mills Limited, and prays that the Collector may be directed to issue L-4 licence in their favour. The petitioner will apply to the authorities for grant of the licence, and that application will be dealt with according to law. No order as to costs.
-
1966 (7) TMI 17
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of any sum as profits on materials supplied by the Government under its agreement with the assessee is right in law ? "
-
1966 (7) TMI 16
Bar of limitation - order u/s 23A - held that ITO alone have the power to issue the notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why an order should not be made u/s 23A - there is no bar in law to the issue of the notice
-
1966 (7) TMI 15
Where it is extremely doubtful whether there were assets available with the person succeeded, who transferred his business to the successor, it cannot be said that proceedings against the successor under the proviso u/s 26(2) would be without justification
-
1966 (7) TMI 14
Firm - registration - section 26A ... ... ... ... ..... e partnership in question is quite consistent with the rule approved of by the Privy Council and accepted by the Supreme Court, viz., it is open to one or more coparceners representing the joint family to enter into partnership with strangers under the authority of the family. The cancellation of the registration in these circumstances was not justified in law. It is not the case of the Tribunal that the partnership is not genuine. Nor is it its case that there has been no compliance with the provisions of section 26A or the rules framed under section 59 of the Income-tax Act. The only ground on which cancellation was made by the Commissioner, was that the case was hit by the observations of the Supreme Court in the above case. As we have already pointed out, that is not the position in this case. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative. The department shall pay the costs of the assessee. Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 100. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1966 (7) TMI 13
Firm - registration u/s 26A ... ... ... ... ..... firm connected with its business. The applicant was the firm itself. If the business activities do not correspond with the stipulations made in the deed of partnership, which is the basis of registration under the Indian Income-tax Act for the purpose of assessment, the genuineness of the claim of the firm as a partnership firm in accordance with the deed of partnership will necessarily be open to challenge. Some discrepancy, if of a trivial nature, may be ignored. But that will be a matter for the income-tax authorities to decide. In a reference under section 66, it will not be open to us to replace our views on facts for the views taken by the authorities concerned, if such views are supportable by some evidence on record. For the reasons given above, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee and dispose of the three references accordingly. The assessee will pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 100 as costs of all these three references to the department.
-
1966 (7) TMI 12
Goods lost by theft - capial loss - allowable as deduction ... ... ... ... ..... f his who was working as an accountant of the firm, after the business hours. That money had already been credited in the books of account to the personal account of the assessee. He had other business also. The learned judges disallowed that loss because that money no longer represented, before it was stolen, the money belonging to the business. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question will be that, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the assessee s claim for deduction of Rs. 11,407 on account of loss by theft as capital loss. The answer is in favour of the assessee. The reference is thus disposed of. Since the Tribunal based their decision on certain observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income-tax, though incorrectly, there will be no order for costs in this reference. A. B. N. SINHA J. - I entirely agree. Question answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1966 (7) TMI 11
Assessee is a HUF carrying on money-lending business - difference between the prices at which the properties were purchased and sold by the assessee - taxable income
-
1966 (7) TMI 10
Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the firm was not entitled to grant of registration and renewal of registration u/s 26A of the IT Act, 1922 - Held, yes
-
1966 (7) TMI 9
Whether the assessment should have been made under the new Act (Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957) or under the old Act (Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955)
-
1966 (7) TMI 8
Firm - registration under s. 26A of the IT Act, 1922
... ... ... ... ..... on for registration in this case was made on 7th July, 1960, that is, before the close of the accounting period on 31st March, 1961, and all that the application could possibly say was We do hereby certify that the profits (or loss, if any) of the previous year will be divided or credited as shown in Section (B) of the Schedule and that the information given above and in the attached Schedule is correct. It is not disputed that this has been done. We are unable to see anything in the order of the Tribunal which will sustain the refusal of registration. It follows that the question has to be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. We do so, but without any order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-section (5) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Question answered in favour of the assessee
-
1966 (7) TMI 7
Whether the assessees did constitute an association of persons carrying on business for gain - Held, no - revenue's appeal is dismissed
-
1966 (7) TMI 6
Partition - entries in the books of account of the family - allotment of the promissory notes to the son, they being a component of the capital - Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no effective partition on July 24, 1954, with reference to any or all the assets
-
1966 (7) TMI 5
Income from trust property - Charitable Purpose - exemption u/s 4(b) ... ... ... ... ..... particular year and during the management of any turn trustee, there was surplus over expenditure, such surplus might be appropriated for himself by such turn trustee. That provision relating to the surplus does not in any way affect or detract from the entirety of the properties having been endowed and held as trust. As held by the Supreme Court in Dasaratharami Reddi v. Subba Rao, where the dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public religious or charitable purpose is created. The test is the extent of dedication, and for this purpose, the whole deed will have to be read, as was pointed out in Vadivelu v. Rajabadar. Reading the document in its entirety and having regard to the substance and extent of dedication, there is no doubt that this was a case of endowment of the entirety of the properties and the same as a whole being held as trust. The properties, therefore, fall within the first limb of section 4. The petition is allowed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100.
|
