|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 201 Records
-
1980 (3) TMI 235
Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation, Amalgamation of companies in national interest – Power of Central Government to provide for
-
1980 (3) TMI 227
Winding up – Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... s parity in this judgment and partly in the other application made by the Union of India cover the entire questions about which the official liquidator has sought a determination and direction in the summons taken out dated the 2nd of June, 1978. Therefore, I am making the following order In terms of prayer (i) it is determined that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Union of India is a secured creditor for a sum of Rs. 1 crore 40 lakhs only and has the right to pursue the claim preferred before the official liquidator as a secured creditor to that extent. As the properties have already been sold and the securities in respect thereto have shifted to the sale proceeds, there is no question of return of the title deeds by the official liquidator to the Union of India. The official liquidator to retain the costs of this application out of the assets in his hands to be paid at the first instance before paying the Union of India as the secured creditor at 100 G. Ms.
-
1980 (3) TMI 226
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... n order in terms of the prayer. The advocate on record of the Union of India is directed to furnish the cause title of the said 23 suits being Suits Nos. 530 to 552 of 1967, in the High Court at Delhi filed by the Union of India against the company in liquidation and others to the official liquidator within a fortnight. The Registrar, Original Side of this court, shall transmit without delay a certified copy of this order to the Registrar of the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court after receipt of such order shall transmit the records of the said 23 suits to this court. The said suits along with the suit, being Suit No. 2028 of 1967, filed by the United Provinces Commercial Corporation (P.) Ltd. (in liquidation) against the Union of India to come together in this list six weeks hence for direction. The Registrar, Original Side, the Registrar, Delhi High Court, the official liquidator and the advocate on record of the Union of India to act on a signed copy of the minute.
-
1980 (3) TMI 225
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... s suspending the operation of any other law, agreement or instrument or any decree or any order of the court, tribunal, officer or other authority. That is the non obstante clause in section 5 of the said Act. Section 6 suspends all remedies under the contract during the period when the said notification under section 4 is in force and the claim will remain suspended and all proceedings will be stayed. Therefore, in my view, the present application is not maintainable during the period the company is declared a relief undertaking and the said notification under section 4 remains in operation which I understand, is due to expire in June, 1980. Therefore, I hope that after the expiry of the said period the respondent-company will be in a position to pay all its creditors including the petitioner whose claims are admitted by the company and remain suspended. In that view of the matter I hold that the application is not maintainable and as such, make no order on this application.
-
1980 (3) TMI 207
Powers of Court to rectify register of members, Powers of Central Government to authorise with permission of High Court to takeover management or control of industrial undertaking
-
1980 (3) TMI 206
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... r own employees in any manner they like and it will not affect in any way the pending matter before the Vigilance Commission, Govt. of West Bengal. In these circumstances, I must hold that prima facie the company is unable to pay its debt and, therefore, I am making the following order, The winding-up petition is admitted. The same is to be advertised once in the Statesman, once in the Basumati and once in the Calcutta Gazette but not to be published before 2nd June, 1980. If the company pays off or settles the entire claim of the petitioning-creditor together with an assessed cost of 30 G. Ms. before the said date, the winding-up petition will remain permanently stayed and compliance with rule 28 of the Companies Court Rules will be dispensed with. In default of such payment, the same should be advertised as directed and the matter to appear in the list on 21st July, 1980. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minute. The judgment and order to be drawn up expeditiously.
-
1980 (3) TMI 190
Meeting and Proceedings – Power of Company Law Board to Order Meeting to be Called, Compromise and arrangement
-
1980 (3) TMI 181
Customs - Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... hey have misplaced their Bill of Entry, it would not be proper to refuse to entertain the claim or to reject it as unsubstantiated. Disposal of claims with such obviously meaningless reasoning does give a short term satisfaction of having got rid of a file and having achieved a numerical disposal of pending refund claims on hand. But obviously if only the Assistant Collector reads his order carefully, it should be obvious to him that he is contradicting himself by his narration. Unless he could bank upon an appellate authority also to reject the appeals, without application of mind, he must really know that such disposals of his are going to land back on his hand once more by remand. His numerical disposals do not in such cases help him to save his own time and labour in terms of man hours. Does he really have all the spare time in the world at his disposal? The Assistant Collector rsquo s order is set aside and the matters stand remanded to the Assistant Collector once more.
-
1980 (3) TMI 177
... ...
... ... ..... he separate addition of Rs. 74,417 assets transferred from M/s Dhanraj Sagarmall. He, accordingly, excluded the addition. The Department is in appeal. 9. The order of the AAC on this issue is perfectly in order. The assets of the assessee could only be taxed once. The WTO took the assets in M/s Sagar Rice and Oil Mills, but at the same time, he also added the amount of Rs. 74,417 being transferred from M/s Dhanaraj Sagarmall. The WTO by additing the separate figure of Rs. 74,417 has taken this figure twice, which was incorrect. The AAC has rightly corrected the mistake. However, it is pertinent to mention that the AAC did not mention this relief in paragraph 9 of his order where he summed up the total relief allowed to the assessee. To this extent, there is a mistake in para 9 of the AAC s order which is corrected and the relief allowed by the AAC would be enhanced by Rs. 74,417. 10. The appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas the appeals of the Department are dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 175
... ...
... ... ..... at in computing the capital gains, deduction has to be allowed for the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. The question is whether the amount of Rs. 17,000 paid by the assessee to the tenant to vacate the property will be an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. The question is whether the amount of Rs. 17,000 paid by the assessee to the tenant to vacate the property will be an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. The assessee asserts that the vendee wanted the vacant possession of the property and that was why the sale consideration was fixed at a higher price. The payment of Rs. 17,000 for getting vacant possession is certainly an expenditure incurred in connection with such transfer of the property. There is ample nexus between the expenditure and the sale. As such we uphold the action of the AAC. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 173
... ...
... ... ..... first Appellate Authority, s. 6(1) of the GT Act authorities the authorities to collect gift-tax on a value which in the opinion of the GTO it would fetch if sold in the open market . Any method which gives a result different from such market value itself cannot be a correct method as adoption of a higher value would be beyond the jurisdiction of the GTO. It is in this view, we have not considered it necessary to go into the question of whether the individual asset as valued by the Valuation Officer is correct or not. At any rate, the valuation is of the individual assets of the company and not of the share itself. The ascertainment of the share value is merely consequential to the valuation of lands and buildings owned by the company. It is not a statutory valuation during the relevant year, even if it is considered to be valuation of shares. Hence, even on merits, we are not in a position to confirm the re-assessment. 12. In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 172
... ...
... ... ..... r s. 143(2), he invites penalty under s. 271(1)(b), but not penalty under s. 271(1)(c), unless there are positive materials to enable application of s. 271(1)(c) also. There are no positive materials in this case. There is no positive material for adoption of the income of Rs. 75,000 also. The order of the IAC reproduced earlier shows that he has levied the penalty merely because of what he calls calculated, deliberate attitude or indifference . Even if the indifference was calculated and deliberate, penalty for such attitude should be found elsewhere as mentioned earlier. We do not find any material to justify this penalty. Even Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) cannot assist the IAC because there is absolutely no material for presuming that there has been any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect in making the estimated return at Rs. 7,500. In this view, we have to delete the penalty. 5. In the result, the penalty of Rs. 67,500 imposed by the IAC is cancelled and the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 171
... ...
... ... ..... utation of the income of a person who has transferred certain assets to his wife, and in certain specified circumstances the income arising from the transferred asset is taxed in the hands of the husband himself. It may be said in a manner of speaking that the income of the wife is deemed to be that of the husband, but the section itself does not say so. This Tribunal has been taking the same view in number of other similar cases. Under the circumstances, we have to allow relief under s. 80C to the extent of Rs. 1,913 being Life Insurance premia payable on the life of the Kartha of the family debited to family accounts from income which has been included in assessee s hands under s. 64(2)(b) of the Act. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The inclusion of minor son s income from M/s Abarana Maligai to the extent of Rs. 9,598 is deleted. The assessee will be eligible for further relief under s. 80C on an amount of Rs. 1,913 subject to the ceiling for the allowance.
-
1980 (3) TMI 170
... ...
... ... ..... urplus lands in question for the earlier asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1975-76. The agricultural income assessed to tax for five of the years under appeal is set out in paragraph 6 of the order of the CIT (A). We find that the average for the 5 yeas thereof works out to about Rs. 15,000 per year. Besides we find that out of the surplus lands, lands to the extent of approximately 1600 acres were not cultivated which is evident from paragraph 7 of the order of the CIT (Appeals). Having regard to the above circumstances, we are of the view that it would be reasonable to estimate the market value of the surplus agricultural lands under consideration for the year s under appeal as under Assessment year Estimated market value 1970-71 Rs. 1,90,000 1971-72 Rs. 1,75,000 1972-73 Rs. 1,60,000 1973-74 Rs. 1,45,000 1974-75 Rs. 1,30,000 1975-76 Rs. 1,15,000 We direct that the WT assessments for the years under appeal be modified on the above basis. 6. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 169
... ...
... ... ..... elief in view of certain duplications in entries between partnership business and individual businesses. In view of all these circumstances, we are not in a position to say that the assessee could have ceased to rely upon the auditor earlier than he did. The remand order of t he Tribunal indicates the then view of the Bench to allow this appeal either in whole or substantially if the affidavit is confirmed. We have held that this was so confirmed. We find that though the auditor s delay could not ordinarily be pleaded as a valid excuse, we are satisfied that the auditor himself was ill and that the case required considerable time and energy for preparation. The assessee head also dispensed with the service of his auditor later and the auditor was a qualified practitioner. Considering these facts, we feel that we will not be justified in upholding penalty in this case for this assessment year Ear. In this view, the penalty is cancelled. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 168
... ...
... ... ..... he facts in each case. The reading of the agreement in this appeal shows that the appellant had a right to the use of certain technical process which was patented by the supplier. The appellant did not have the right to the patent or the process after the stipulated period in the agreement. New developments had to be paid for separately. Even if there be any capital element of enduring advantage, this, in our opinion, should be taken to represent the lump sum payment of Rs. 5,000 and not the recurring payment of Rs. 4,239 which is in dispute before us. The payment is for the right to use the special process. It is allowable as a deduction on this ground alone. The further point that it is based on production further supports the appellant s claim. In any view of the matter, the claim is of a revenue nature and it is wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant s business. It is therefore to be allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Relief due Rs. 4,239.
-
1980 (3) TMI 167
... ...
... ... ..... glish Law. s. 13 requires the property which was previously owned by one to cause it to be vested in him and any other person jointly before it can be applied. What happens when a self acquired property is converted to joint family property was considered in 84 ITR 790 at pages 795 and 796. When separate property is converted into joint family property, the property vests in the family as an entity by itself. It will be inaccurate to say that the father owns the property jointly with the family. The rule of survivorship is also abrogated in situations as in s. 6 and 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 8. In view of this we hold that s. 13 cannot be applied to joint family property and also where the self acquired property is impressed with the character of joint family property. 9. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and hold that only the cessor of interest in the joint family property that passed on the death and not the whole value of the property is liable to Estate Duty.
-
1980 (3) TMI 166
... ...
... ... ..... akes no difference. The assessee was undoubtedly the owner in respect of the 20 acres of land. As for the valuation, the GTO has accepted the valuation declared for purposes of registration. This was the amount mentioned in the gift-tax return itself though it was claimed to be not liable. The AAC also found on enquiry that the valuation adopted is correct. Under the circumstances, the value cannot be taken to be less merely because the assessee could get away with the declaration of lesser value for purposes of civil suit. At any rate, we have considered all the relevant facts, the location of the lands, the enquiry made by the AAC and other materials. We find that the valuation adopted in the assessment cannot be said to be high. Apart from the declaration for civil suit, there is absolutely no material canvassed by the assessee s representative to suggest any lesser value. Under these circumstances, the appeal has to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (3) TMI 165
... ...
... ... ..... ome addition even in the original assessment. There was no proof to support his claim. The fact that there was no explanation could justify an addition, but it cannot justify a penalty. Further, what is added is addition for unexplained investment and has not been shown to be even concealed income. As for Expl. to s. 271(1)(C), we are not in a position to say that it could apply to assessee s case. Since the addition is for an investment, the explanation for which was not found acceptable to the ITO, we are not in a position to say that assessee should have anticipated such lack of acceptance and disclosed the investment as income. In other words, there is no material for holding that the omission to disclose this amount of Rs. 16,500 is due to any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. Hence we have to cancel the penalty of Rs. 60,000 levied by the IAC. 6. In the result, the quantum appeal is partly allowed, while the order of penalty is cancelled.
-
1980 (3) TMI 164
... ...
... ... ..... d High Court in the case reported in 119 ITR 658 cited above was dealing with a case where there was an agreement for payment of bonus on 18th Nov., 1965 for calendar year 1963. The amount could be paid by 31st Jan., 1966. The assessee s accounting year was calendar year 1966. The bonus claim of Rs. 15,273 therefore related to 1963, the agreement was in 1965 and only the payment date fell in 1966. Since the assessee was maintaining accounts on mercantile basis, it should have ordinarily provided for bonus for 1963 or atleast in 1965, when the agreement was completed. The assessee did not choose to do so, but claimed the payment on payment basis. This was not allowed since the method of accounting was mercantile. In the present case, we find that the agreement was during the year. We therefore find that the reliance on this case is misconceived. Actually, we are of the view that this decision supports the assessee s case. 6. In result, appeal is allowed. Relief due Rs. 23,333.
........
|
