|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 119 Records
-
1970 (2) TMI 89 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Partnership made between the undivided family and one of its coparceners, the second assessee - entitlement to renewal of registration
-
1970 (2) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT
Payments to be made to the assessee under the three trust deeds cannot be considered as annuities, and, hence, she is not entitled to the benefit of s. 2(e)(iv) - High Court was right in its view that the value of the assessee`s jewellery should not be taken into consideration in determining her net wealth
-
1970 (2) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the supply of the various preparations by each club to its members involved a transaction of sale within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It appears on the findings recorded by the High Court that the clubs or associations sought to be rendered liable in these appeals were not transferring property belonging to them but were merely acting as agents for and on behalf of the members. They were not selling goods but were rendering a service to their members.
-
1970 (2) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Power to summon persons suspected of having property of company, etc and Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc.
-
1970 (2) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Whether once a mode of payment of dividend is agreed to, namely, by posting a cheque or a warrant, the place where such posting is to be done is the place of performance and also the place of payment, as such performance in the manner agreed to is equivalent to payment and results in the discharge of the obligation?
Held that:- The offence under section 207 is the failure to pay dividend or to post a cheque or a warrant for the dividend amount. Since the obligation to post the warrant arose at the registered office of the company, failure to discharge that obligation also arose at the registered office of the company. Therefore, the alleged offence must be held to have taken place at the place where the company's registered office is situate and not where the dividend warrant, when posted, would be received.
In that view, the High Court was in error in holding that the Magistrate at Meerut had jurisdiction to try the said complaints. The appeals must accordingly be allowed and the High Court's orders set aside. Appeal allowed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the consideration for 18,000 shares of the Vikram Sugar Mills Ltd. (now under liquidation) valued at ₹ 18 lakhs was not fully paid up by the shareholders, namely, the present appellants?
Held that:- Where, however, the contract is fraudulent or shows on the face of it that the consideration given to the company is illusory or is clearly not equivlent to the nominal value of the shares the shares cannot, to this extent, be treated as fully paid and the shareholder may be held liable to pay for them in full. It is significant that no steps were taken by the liquidators to have, the register rectified or the contract entered into by the company with the appellants avoided by means of appropriate proceedings. Even in the application filed by respondent No. 1 in October, 1961, there was no allegation of fraud. The fact stated related more to inadequacy of price or consideration and not to its being illusory or the like. In our judgment the learned single judge was right and the Division Bench was in error in directing an inquiry into the question whether the appellants had paid consideration which was inadequate. Appeal allowed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Seizure - Jurisdiction - Adjudication - Smuggling - Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ilasam, J. In any case, in the affidavit in support of the petitions, the legality of the seizure has not been questioned on the ground that the proper officer had no reasonable belief that the goods were contraband. Also we find from the sworn statement of the respondent in his counter-affidavit that he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case as revealed by the investigation at Calcutta. The second ground, therefore, fails. 4.We see some force in the last contention, because the nature of the goods is such that efflux of time is likely to damage or impair the value of the goods. But we are not inclined to give any directions as to their disposal at this stage. We however, direct that as soon as possible, the goods should either be handed to the appellants or the petitioner on receipt of their value, or be sold and their proceeds realised, whatever might be the ultimate outcome of the adjudication proceedings at Calcutta. 5.The appeals and the petition are dismissed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Evidence - Onus ... ... ... ... ..... nt case were smuggled gold, that is to say, gold imported contrary to the prohibition in force relating to the import of gold within the terms of section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. In that view of the matter, the offence under Section 135(b) of the Act has not been proved by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to an acquittal in respect of the same. Having regard to this conclusion at which I have arrived, it is not necessary for me to consider the third contention of Mr. Mehta that there is no evidence to show that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the said gold biscuits were smuggled gold, and I do not propose to deal with the same. 7.In the result, I set aside the conviction of the accused under section 135(b) of the Customs Act as well as the sentence passed upon him by the trial court in respect of that offence. The revision application filed by the State must, therefore, be dismissed. I order that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the accused.
-
1970 (2) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that there were two apparent errors of law in the Assistant Collector's order, in that, he had relied on (a) a warning in respect of the previous year's consignment, and (b) a restriction on future imports of similar goods to the extent of 15% of the face value mentioned in the licence?
Held that:- In the absence of any proof that they were, the High Court obviously could not say that they were governed by the said clarification, and that, therefore, the goods did not fall under Entry 38A(e), as the Assistant Collector had ruled, or that there was any apparent error in that finding. It appears that except for relying on the said clarification no attempt was made at any time to establish that the goods were similar to those of the previous year's imports and therefore, could not be classified as auto-bulbs.
The question of restriction to the extent of 15% arose only when Hazarimal relied upon the said clarification in his explanation to the show cause notice. It was, therefore, that the Assistant Collector in his order stated that even if the goods were covered by that clarification, only 15% of the value stated in that licence could be imported. It is thus difficult to see how the impugned order suffered from either of the two errors of law apparent on the record. he order stated that even if the clarification were to apply on the footing that the goods were similar to those of the previous year's import then the restriction of 15% import contained in the clarification would apply, and that, therefore, in either case the import could not be held valid. In view of such clear language in the impugned order the Division Bench cannot be said to have been in error as contended by Counsel. Appeal dismissed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly barrels and actions. The parts of a gun can be broadly categorised under four heads, viz. (1) Butt (2) Barrel (3) Action and (4) Forehand. According to the appellant, the articles imported are only Barrels and Actions. It did not import either Butts of Forehands. Even according to the Collector of Customs, Butts were not imported. Without a Butt a gun cannot be used. Therefore the Collector of Customs, Board of Revenue and the Government were not right in concluding that the articles imported by the appellant are 12 bore guns. They are obviously parts of gun. Division Bench of the High Court was in error in thinking that every finding of the authorities under the Sea Customs Act, however, wrong it may be is binding on the Court. 5.In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the Division of the High Court it set aside and that of the learned single Judge restored. The respondents shall pay the costs of the appellant both in this Court as well as in the High Court.
-
1970 (2) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee won a prize - Whether the income-tax authorities were right in holding that, out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was available to the assessee for investment in his money-lending business - whether estimate of capital available can be made on the basis of past history of money-lending business
-
1970 (2) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Termination of Service - Retrenchment Compensation – allowability for deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ended towards discharge of a legal liability is not made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the company. In the result, except as regards the above two items of Rs. 21,200 and Rs. 16,188, we confirm the finding made by the Appellate Tribunal that the rest of the disbursements have not been made wholly or exclusively for the purposes of business of the company. These are, in any evert, not disbursements for which any deduction can be allowed under section 10 of the Act. Our answers to the question accordingly are Question No. 1 in the, negative but only in respect of the amount aggregating to Rs. 1,27,511 (excluding the two items of Rs. 21,200 and Rs. 16,188). Question No. 2 in the affirmative but only in respect of the amount aggregating to Rs. 1,27,511 (excluding the two items of Rs. 21,200 and Rs. 16,188). Question No. 3 in the affirmative. The fair order for costs under the circumstances discussed above is that each party will bear and pay its own costs.
-
1970 (2) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of the petitioner's income – even if assessee's representation was accepted at original assessment, invocation of section 147(a) is justified if assessee's representation was found to be untrue
-
1970 (2) TMI 48 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Undisclosed profits - genuineness of the partnership - whether refusal to registration under section 26A is justified
-
1970 (2) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cash credits - responsibility of establishing the nature of cash credit is on the assessee ... ... ... ... ..... d yield of cut mica. But the cash credits appeared in an earlier period and, therefore, could not relate to the suppressed yield of mica. The Tribunal also recognized the force of this circumstance, but put a gloss upon it stating that their basic finding was that the results disclosed by the assessee could not be accepted and that any attempt by them to locate where and when the suppression occurred would only be in the nature of a guess. As pointed out by us the suppression, according to their finding, was only in the months of September, October and November while the cash credits appeared in the months of June, July and August. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 60,000 representing cash credits and the amount of Rs. 60,000 representing suppressed yield of mica should be separately added. We, therefore, answer the question as reformulated by us in favour of the department. The department is entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250
-
1970 (2) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Power of tribunal to condone delay to application seeking reference ... ... ... ... ..... lly challenged before the High Court. It is evident that the decision of the Tribunal was quite correct and the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the application, since the law gives no jurisdiction to the Tribunal to extend limitation, as is done under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Even this was not sufficient to deter the boldness of Mr. Pal for the Commissioner to suggest a point of distinction from the present case by the submission that the said decision related to a matter of 1957 before the new Limitation Act, 1963, came into force. That distinction is not relevant for the present case because the new and the old Limitation Acts on this point of the expression the court make no difference. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to discuss the Bombay case in Purshottamdas H. Sabnai v. Impex (India) Ltd., to which reference was made by Dr. Pal. For these reasons, this application must fail. The rule is discharged with costs. T. K. BASU J.-I agree.
-
1970 (2) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessee,an Iranian,came to India - credit of foreign receipts in assessee's accounts - taxability u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - burden is on revenue to show that source for accumulating profits existed in the non-taxable territory
-
1970 (2) TMI 44 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the asessee is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1970 (2) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Issue of reassessment notice u/s 34(1)(b) to widow and not to minor son - objections to the assessment proceedings
-
1970 (2) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessee-respondent-company obtained a lease of a piece of land - tenant of land constructed building on the leased land - tenant surrendered the building with land to the lessor - held that value of building should be treated as capital receipt in the hands of the lessor
|
