|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 85 Records
-
1975 (1) TMI 61
Meetings and proceedings – Company Law Board’s power to call annual general meeting,Power of Company Law Board to Order Meeting to be Called, Directors – Vacation of office by
-
1975 (1) TMI 59
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... consideration the rise in the price of these materials as well as depreciation of the same during the relevant period, in my view Rs. 3,000 would be the reasonable value of the materials of the structures put up by the company and removed by respondent No. 1. For the reasons given above, I hold that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of misfeasance in relation to two items of the claim of the official liquidator, namely, a sum of Rs. 1,19,862 as the value of the stock of paper and Rs. 3,000 as the value of the materials forming part of the structures removed by respondent No. 1, that is, in all, for a sum of Rs. 1,22,862 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum pendente lite and future. The official liquidator will also get the costs of this proceeding from the respondent No. 1. Hearing fee Rs. 560 only. In the result, this application is allowed in part as indicated above against respondent No. 1 and the same is dismissed without costs against respondent No. 3.
-
1975 (1) TMI 45
... ...
... ... ..... rges for the relevant repair, reconditioning, rebuilding are for below the ruling price and from 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the prices. The also sufficiently indicates that the appellants did not produce new articles. The plea of works contract is found to be reasonable and appropriate when considered with the entirety of the circumstances, facts etc. 8. Looked at from any angle, we do not find any support for the view of the lower authorities. There are no materials etc. for the view that the appellants could have produced the articles. The appellants could not be treated as manufacturers as by their processes of repair, reconditioning, or rebuilding, no fresh article came into existence. There are also no specific instances of independent production as such processes are done on the articles brought by the customers. The available records give ample scope for the treatment of the disputed turnover as receipts from works contracts. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1975 (1) TMI 43
... ...
... ... ..... e donee was also given. The assessee had valued the gifted property at Rs. 47,000. The ITO accepted this value as the fair market value of the property. The cost of construction of this property had already been examined in the earlier year. The wealth-tax return for this year had also already been filed before the ITO a day earlier. All the relevant facts for making the assessment were before the GTO when he made the original assessment and these very facts were sought to be seen against after the Wealth tax assessment had been made. There was no new fact which came to the knowledge of the GTO subsequently. That the Wealth tax assessment was made at a higher figure does not in our opinion create a new fact. This was based only on an estimate. That could not form, in our opinion, information for the purpose of reopening the gift tax assessment. We accordingly allow the assessee rsquo s appeal and quash the reassessment made under s. 16. 5. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1975 (1) TMI 42
... ...
... ... ..... ttled that under s. 16(1)(b) the GTO cannot change the assessment figures on a change of his opinion. We, therefore, agree with the AAC that the re-assessment proceedings are invalid. 5. The learned Departmental Representative relying on the Supreme Court division in A.N. Lakshman Shenoy vs. ITO 34 ITR 275 (SC) submitted that the word information cannot be construed in a universal sense and its meaning must depend on and vary with the circumstances of each case. The information must be definite and it must have a connection with the assessment. This point is settled. but the information has to be about the state of law or the state of fact. Now in this case itself, if the properties which had been gifted have been sold subsequently for a value higher than what has been taken for assessment, then that would definitely constitute information. Unless we have such information it would not be possible to uphold the reassessment proceedings. 6. The Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1975 (1) TMI 41
... ...
... ... ..... the Departmental Representative, have many facts for distinction. We would confine ourselves only to one and that is that those two are not cases where the custody of the movable was with a third party as in this case before us. These were only cases of inflation of stocks held and possessed by the assessee themselves. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The addition of Rs. 5,37,810 as income of the assessee from other sources is deleted. 16. ITA No. 1224/MDS/72-73 Assessment year 1960-61. This is an appeal by the assessee. We need not recapitulate the facts. It is agreed before us by both sides that the result of this appeal would depend on the result of the appeal for immediately previous asst. yr. 1959-60. We having found that appeal in favour of the assessee, it follows that this appeal has also to be allowed and the two items of addition deleted. 17. The appeal is therefore allowed. The additions of Rs. 54,375 and Rs. 68,950 as income of the assessee are deleted.
-
1975 (1) TMI 40
... ...
... ... ..... was not validly imposed. 3. Against this order the Department has now come on appeal before us. We see no merit in these appeals. As the AAC pointed out, the assessee honestly believed that it was not the income of a BOI and, therefore, there was no obligation on their part to file a return under s. 139(1). It may be that they were not able to explain properly the sources of this amount. There may be sufficient grounds for treating this as income for assessment purpose. But when it comes to a case of levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a), what we have to see is whether the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. These two persons contend that they do not form a BOI and therefore, there is no liability on them to file a return as a BOI. Their belief that they are not assessable as a BOI would itself constitute reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. We will therefore uphold the AAC s order cancelling the penalty. 4. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1975 (1) TMI 39
... ...
... ... ..... Customs officials who seized it from the jeep. If, by any chance, any such person happens to be the real owner and succeeds in getting back this amount into his hands, we are quite certain, though it is beyond pur province to express such and an opinion, that the IT Department, by appropriate administrative or judicial orders, will render this asessment nugatary and of no force. Whatever that may be, we do not think that any injury will be caused to any person who may be the real owner of this money by this assessment order or by our confirmation of that assessment order. The assessee have no case that they received the amount from Velayudhan so that it may be said that they have a contractual obligation to return it to Velayudhan. They have also no case that they are carriers entrusted with the money for safe carriage of it to Madurai. Even if they are carriers, they are absolved of the liability because of seizure by an Act of State. 6. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.
-
1975 (1) TMI 38
... ...
... ... ..... ncies. So we find that the provision is a permissible deduction provided it is made on scientific basis. The judgment of the Supreme Court under the WT Act in 93 ITR 603 Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Company Ltd. vs. CWT cited by the Departmental Representative has no relevancy to the issue in consideration before us. 5. The basis for quantification adopted by the assessee is not scientific. We had in many cases laid down the principles for quantification. We are assured that all the IT authorities in this region are aware of our guidelines laid down in these cases. So, the assessee will have to produce an actuarial valuation of the liability before the ITO within a reasonable time. If not produced, the ITO may work it out in accordance with the guidelines laid down by us and if necessary after obtaining from the assessee further particulars about the matter. 6. The appeal is allowed in part. The assessment to the extent of gratuity is referred back to the ITO for re-determination.
-
1975 (1) TMI 37
Suit, Prosecution, or other legal proceeding - Limitation - Cause of action ... ... ... ... ..... as the present case is concerned is that the test of good faith has to be found only to Section 40(1) and that it is not applicable to Section 40(2) and that sub-section (1) gives complete protection to the Government or the officers of the Government so long as they act in good faith and sub-section (2) merely provides for the bar of limitation of time in respect of suits, prosecutions .or other legal proceedings. 10.Therefore, I am of the opinion that Section 40(2) of the Act is attracted to the present case, even assuming that the third respondent herein had not acted in good faith. Hence, the suit instituted by the appellant was barred by limitation under Section 40(2) of the Act and liable to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed. 11.In view of this conclusion of mine, it is unnecessary to consider the other aspects dealt with by the trial judge in his judgment. 12.Accordingly the appeal fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs in the appeal.
-
1975 (1) TMI 35
Customs Duty - Exemption - 'Import' and 'taxable event' ... ... ... ... ..... clear that it is impossible to accept the view that the taxable event in respect of levy of customs duty takes place only when a bill of entry is presented or thereafter. If such were the correct view in a large number of cases person may import goods into India contrary to the provisions of the Act and escape from levy and payment of customs duty. In our opinion, the learned Judge was right in taking the view that as in the present case the goods imported by the respondents, which were admittedly covered by the exemption notification, entered the territorial waters of India or crossed the customs barriers before March 31, 1967 being the last date up to which the notification was operative, the respondents were not under an obligation to pay any customs duty. Thus the demand made by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, was unjustified and the impugned order has been rightly quashed by the learned Judge. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with costs.
-
1975 (1) TMI 34
Censor Certificate length of films - Classification - Boards' directions - Validity - Supplementary instructions
-
1975 (1) TMI 33
Phenol Formaldehyde Resins - Scope and effect ... ... ... ... ..... he adhesive property of the resin, Government hold that the assessment of gross weight is in order. In the course of hearing, the petitioner have also referred to the manufacture of Phenol Formaldehyde using sulphuric acid as catalyst in the production of the resin in granular form. The correspondence with the foreign collaborator has also been to this end. However, as the actual process of manufacture employed by the petitioner company is different, these points have no relevance to the issue in hand. 9. In the result we do not find that the notification granting the concessional rate dated the 23rd Sept., 1973 can be assailed on any of the grounds, taken by the petitioner nor, can we hold that there is any statutory rule enjoining on the Department to levy duty on the phenol Formaldehyde Resin, without taking into account its water content, if any. Accordingly, this application must fail. The rule is discharged. The stay order is vacated. There will be no order as to cost.
-
1975 (1) TMI 32
Cut or broken steel ingots purchased from Mini Steel Plants - Alternative remedy - Existence of
-
1975 (1) TMI 31
'Skelp' and 'Strips'-Item 26AA-Absence of identifiable test. - Fiscal Legislation should be clear and unambiguous
-
1975 (1) TMI 30
Application For Reference, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... laches calling for its dismissal. It may bear mention here that the petition has been filed not only under article 226 but also under article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no rule of limitation for preferring an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India (See Peota v. Phagu). The view taken by the Tribunal that one reference application arising out of a common judgment disposing of five appeals was not competent being not tenable in law cannot be allowed to stand on a technical ground of laches, which contention otherwise is not supportable on the facts of the case. In view of my discussion on the various points noted above, the writ petition succeeds and the same is hereby accepted with costs. The impugned order dated 27th January, 1966, annexure G , is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to entertain the reference application of the department (No. 1722 of 1964-65) and deal with it in accordance with law. Counsel s fee, Rs. 200. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (1) TMI 29
Determining Perquisite ... ... ... ... ..... ot applicable, it shall be open to the assessee to raise this point in the proceedings under section 260. We would make it clear that on the question of valuation of the benefit at 9 per cent. interest on the overdrawings, which was adopted by the Income-tax Officer, it was not open to the assessee to raise any dispute in the section 260 proceedings. In this connection, we may also point out that under rule 3(g) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, it is for the Income-tax Officer to value the benefit on such basis and at such amount as he considers fair and reasonable. The question whether the 9 per cent. interest on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer calculated the benefit was fair or reasonable, was never in dispute, and, therefore, that could not be again gone into in the proceedings under section 260. Subject to the above observations, we answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (1) TMI 28
Capital Gains, Fair Market Value, Taxing Statutes, The Constitution ... ... ... ... ..... d a gift deed of the other moiety. If the assessee had executed two such deeds, could the department have contended that capital gains tax is attracted to the transfer by virtue of section 55(2) ? Admittedly, to a case of gift pure and simple, section 55(2) is not attracted. What we have to look into is the substance of the transaction. If the substance is looked into it is really a case of sale of 25/55ths share and gift of 30/55ths share in the property and the extent of the gift is a pure and simple gift which does not attract capital gains tax. So construed, the transaction does not come within the scope of section 45. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there were no capital gains arising to the assessee on the sale of property for the assessment year 1964-65. Question answered accordingly. The assessee is entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee, Rs. 250.
-
1975 (1) TMI 27
... ...
... ... ..... fore, recalculate or get it recalculated by the Income-tax Officer as to the exact amount, of arrears of pension which became due on April 2, 1959, for the purpose of including the same in the assessment year 1960-61. It is stated that the legal representative of the assessee had filed an application under section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has found that he would be entitled to the benefit of the provision. We have no doubt that the Income-tax Officers would give him the benefit available under section 89(1). For the foregoing reasons we answer the reference as follows The difference between Rs. 526.94 and Rs. 484.87 for the period prior to November 23, 1956, and the difference between Rs. 526.94 and Rs. 395.19 for the period subsequent to November 23, 1956, would be assessable for the assessment year 1960-61 as pension which became due on April 2, 1959. As the assessee has substantialy succeeded, he will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (1) TMI 26
Law Applicable To Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... onal Commissioner, is set aside. The result of that is, it would be open to the Income-tax Officer to refer the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who has jurisdiction for the purpose of dealing with the same according to law. The learned counsel for the revenue invited our attention to section 275 which prescribed a period of limitation for making orders imposing a penalty. In view of this provision, it is expected that the petitioner would extend full co-operation in completing the penalty proceedings within the period prescribed. In particular, we would consider as fair and reasonable if he is given a week s time for submitting his objections and producing such evidence as he may choose in penalty proceedings before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Subject to these observations, we allow the writ petition and make the rule nisi absolute. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
|
