|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 68 Records
-
1974 (3) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... time either before or after that date. The fee of the arbitrator which is tentatively fixed at Rs. 500 shall be paid by the official liquidator after the arbitrator files his award in this court. The original documents on the record of this case, if any, which have not been admitted into evidence may be returned to the respective parties who produced them so that they may produce the same before the arbitrator if so advised. The documents which have already been admitted into evidence may be sent to the arbitrator with a covering letter and with a complete detailed list thereof by a special messenger (after receiving the consent to act from the arbitrator), and under clear acknowledgment of the arbitrator which may be obtained and placed on the record of this appeal. Since Mr. Krishan Lal Kapur has adopted a very fair attitude in this appeal, I do not think it proper to burden his client with the costs of this appeal. The parties are, therefore, left to bear their own costs.
-
1974 (3) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Costs of proof ... ... ... ... ..... r section 460, sub-section (6) of the Companies Act, 1956, to rectify an error of the type which has occurred in this case. I may quote sub-section (6) of section 460 of the Companies Act, 1956. It reads Any person aggrieved by any act or decision of the liquidator may apply to the court and the court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of, and make such further order as it thinks just in the circumstances . This power has obviously to be used by the court in a suitable case. This is a suitable case and, therefore, I would treat this appeal, even if it can be said to be beyond time, as an application under section 460(6) and direct the official liquidator to pass an order under rule 163. The appeal or application, whichever way one may look at this proceeding, is allowed and the case remanded back to the official liquidator for passing an order under rule 163 concerning the appellant s claim as a creditor of M/s. Capital Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. No costs.
-
1974 (3) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up - Meetings to ascertain wishes of creditors or contributors
-
1974 (3) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Oppression and Mismanagement - Right to apply under section 397 and 398 ... ... ... ... ..... to this that the applicants can be impleaded as legal representatives even though Order 22 does not apply because they are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. Another objection raised by Mr. Chopra is to the effect that the petition is no longer pending and has been consigned to the record room. I have already made it clear, in my orders previously passed, that the petition is not disposed of and that the case was only consigned to the record room as there was no petitioner before the court. Once somebody is impleaded, or some one wants to prosecute the petition, there is no impediment to the petition being heard further. In these circumstances, I see no reason why the petition for substitution should not be allowed. I accordingly permit the applicants to be impleaded as legal representatives and to be brought on record in place of the late Shri R. N. Maira and proceed with the petition. As the point was quite a novel one, I did not make any order as to costs.
-
1974 (3) TMI 24 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... ewing all the circumstances and in particular the assessee s request to the ITO for granting the short time, the ITO granting such time, the fact that the tax was paid within a short time of its being due and suo motu, the fact that credit has been given by the ITO for tax paid under s. 140A etc, in my view, the guide lines given by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court as quoted above are fully applicable and should be followed with respect. Here, according to me, the breach flows from the bona fide belief that the offender was not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Further, no doubt, it is lawful to impose penalty but that itself would not justify imposition of penalty. The entire attitude of the assessee shows his bona fide belief and reduce the breach to a technical or venial breach of the taxation Act. In these circumstances. I agree with respect with my learned brother and hold that this is a suitable case were imposition of penalty is not justified.
-
1974 (3) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
Refund - Erroneous payment - Inadmissible against other dues. - Admissibility of - Rule 11. ... ... ... ... ..... y the decision herein. 4. Then the only other question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in regard to the excise duty said to have been paid on the products for the period from 8-6-1970 to 17-6-1970. That of course will depend on the question whether the petitioner has applied for refund Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules deals with the question of refund. That provides for method and manner in which refund has to be sought. Evidently petitioner has not resorted to the procedure prescribed. There is an attempt before me to challenge the rule. The foundation for such a challenge has not been made in the petition, so much so, I need not go into it. It is for the parties, if so aggrieved, to seek appropriate remedies for obtaining refund if that is permissible in law. That question is not agitated here and it is not necessary to adjudicate it here. 5. Subject to what is stated above, the original Petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances no costs.
-
1974 (3) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
A Firm, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statutes, Undisclosed Sources, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme
-
1974 (3) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a gift to fall under clause (8), it must be one in respect of which the donor s spouse should necessarily have capacity to dispose it of. It was then held that the assessee was entitled to an exemption under section 5(1)(viii) to the extent of the value of the gift involved in the settlement of his spouse. We are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the Bombay High Court. In our opinion the assessee was entitled to an exemption to the extent of the value of the gift involved in the settlement in her. Learned counsel for the department did not question the position that in view of the value of the property involved in the trust being Rs. 22,52,553 the net value of the interest given to the lady would in any case be at least Rs. 1,00,000. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (3) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Company In Which Public Are Substantially Interested, Previous Year, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... refore, of the opinion that the view adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal is correct. Moreover, even if we are to accept Mr. Awasthy s contention we will be driven to the conclusion that at least two interpretations are possible so far as section 2(18)(b)(ii) is concerned one canvassed by Mr. Awasthy, learned counsel for the department, and the other by Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the assessee. In regard to the interpretations of fiscal statutes, the rule is well settled that where two interpretations are possible, that interpretation should be adopted which is beneficial to the assessee. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to differ from the decision of the Tribunal. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs. PRITAM SINGH PATTAR J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (3) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confidential Nature ... ... ... ... ..... d subsequent to March 31, 1964. We, therefore, direct the trial court that as regards items at serial Nos. 3 and 4, referred to by it in para 5 of the impugned order, to decide about compelling the production of these documents or not on the basis, whether these documents were filed or produced or made or assessment orders completed, as the case may be, subsequent to March 31, 1964, or earlier. If they are filed, etc., on or before March 31, 1964, protection would be available and if they are subsequent to March 31, 1964, they will not be entitled to protection. Revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the order passed by the trial court is modified accordingly. Rule is modified accordingly. In view of the fact that there was divergence of opinion amongst several High Courts and there is no reported ruling of this court, each party is ordered to bear its own costs in this revision petition. The trial court is directed to hear the suit as expeditiously as possible.
-
1974 (3) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Confidential Nature ... ... ... ... ..... (now section 148). If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason the entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction." It is axiomatic that what is void is non est. In this situation, the assessee was not precluded from urging the grounds Nos. 2 to 5. By giving them up the assessee could not confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer where he had none. Therefore, the Tribunal was bound to hear the assessee and could not reject the appeal on the ground that grounds Nos. 2 to 5 were not agitated before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thus could not be permitted to be agitated before it. Mr. Awasthy fairly and frankly conceded that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kurban Hussain's case, the question referred has to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. We return the said answer to the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs. C. G. SURI J.--I agree.
-
1974 (3) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Attachment And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... ender the provisions of Order 21, rule 89, 90 or 91 superfluous so far as parties to the suit or their representatives are concerned (Vide Jatindra Mohan v. Mahipal, Seshagiri Ayyar v. Valambal Ammal and Narayanan Namboodiripad v. Thomakutty). The application to set aside the sale, in the present case, was, therefore, rightly held by the Tax Recovery Commissioner to fall under rule 61 of the Second Schedule and not under rule 9. Rule 61 provides that no sale shall be set aside unless the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the irregularity and that an application by a defaulter shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in execution of the certificate. The petitioner did not choose to deposit the amount recoverable from him and, therefore, the application treated as one under rule 61 had necessarily to be disallowed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1974 (3) TMI 16 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e are false or non-existent and he has come to this conclusion on the basis of a report compiled by the department subsequently wherein the parties from whom the assessee is shown to have taken the loans in question are shown as bogus lenders. The conclusion of the authority that it has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment because the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts is based on the materials collected. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove, we are clearly of opinion that in the instant case the authority has jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. In the result, we find that this petition has no merits. The petition is accordingly rejected. The rule is discharged. We, however, make no order as to costs. The stay order stands vacated. B. N. SARMA J.--I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1974 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1922 Act, Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... the assessment of the firm has to be under the new Act and if that is the legal position when the power is given under section 35(5) to rectify the assessment and reassessment of the firm, that power in this case will have to be exercised on the assessment and reassessment of the firm under the new Act. Any contrary view would lead to an anomaly. Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that in order to remove the anomalies that might arise power had been given under section 298 of the Act to issue orders for removal of difficulties and indeed such order has been issued. But this situation has not been covered. That is, however, unfortunate but that does not, in our opinion, detract from the construction that we have made of sub-section (5) of section 35 of the Act. In the aforesaid view of the, matter this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.-- I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1974 (3) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A Firm, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statutes, Undisclosed Sources, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme
-
1974 (3) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Writ Jurisdiction, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... not only had an adequate alternative remedy but in fact he has exercised it. In Lalji Haridas v. R. H. Bhatt, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to supersede the jurisdiction and authority of the Income-tax Officers to deal with the merits of all the contentions that the assessee may raise before them and so it would be entirely inappropriate to permit an assessee to move the High Court under article 226 and contend that a notice issued against him is barred by time. This is a matter which the income-tax authorities must consider on the merits in the light of the relevant evidence. In our opinion both the points raised on behalf of the petitioner can conveniently be dealt with by the appellate authority. This is in our opinion not a fit case for our interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs without going into the merits raised therein. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1974 (3) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... would be indicated by the description of the status the other way. In this connection we may also rely on and refer to the decision in Gopaldas Parshottamdas v. Commissioner of Income-tax and In re Radheylal Balmukand, which were decisions on assessment made under section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Reliance may also be placed on the decisions in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. K. M. N. N. Swaminathan Chettiar, Balchand v. Income-tax Officer, Sagar, Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ridhkaran and Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta v. Sudhir Kumar Laha. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it cannot be said that the assessment of the Hindu undivided family in this case was without jurisdiction. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the learned judge was right in dismissing the application under article 226 of the Constitution. In the premises, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA C. J.--I agree.
-
1974 (3) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Perquisite To Relatives ... ... ... ... ..... ely because L. Lakshmipat Singhania chose to give advice to a particular company it did not necessarily mean that giving of financial advice was his business or profession. Since the facts for bringing the case under the head profits and gains of business, profession or vocation were not at all made out, the question of considering whether this income was taxable under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not at all arise for consideration. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the income-tax authorities were justified in treating it as an income from other sources and taxing it as such. In the result, we answer first part of the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the department. Second part of the question, viz., whether the income was assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years in question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the department. The department is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1974 (3) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Original Assessment, Subject Matter ... ... ... ... ..... that the question whether an assessee is entitled to rebate and if so at what rate is not a matter of mere recomputation of tax. It is a question of determination of application of a particular provision and that matter not being the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and not being the subject-matter of rectification under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Officer could not, after the order of the Income-tax Officer had merged in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order, decide afresh what rebate should be given on the plea of implementing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by virtue of power under sub-section (4) of section 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the learned judge came to the right conclusion. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1974 (3) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te contemplates transfer of 25 per cent. of the fees that has been earned by the assessee and brought into existence. There is no overriding title to the source of the income. The payment by the patient of 25 per cent. of the fees earned by the medical officer to the Government may be a term embodied in the nature of the employment of the medical officer but that, in our opinion, is neither material nor relevant. It is none the less a case of application of income. If the assessee pays 25 per cent. of the fees received by him to the State Government the same will be deductible as an allowable expense as has been done in the case of Dr. Awasthi. We would answer the question by saying that the Tribunal was not right in holding that under the relevant rules to the U. P. Medical Manual 25 per cent. received as fee from the Central Government employees was not the assessee s income. The Commissioner of Income-tax would be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200 in each case.
|
