|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 239
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... of the Companies Act. If there is any fraud played upon the petitioner by Sant Ram Dhuper, as a result of which shares which were standing in the petitioner s name have been transferred, the remedy of the petitioner would lie by way of a suit and not by filing the present petition. Another factor which is to be taken into consideration is that a very large number of transactions of sale of these very shares have taken place. None of the purchasers are parties to these proceedings. The exercise of jurisdiction under section 155 by ordering rectification of register of members would create all sorts of complications affecting persons who have not had an opportunity to represent their case here and who are admittedly bona fide purchasers for value without notice of this dispute. Under the circumstances, the objection raised by the counsel for the respondents must prevail. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 238
Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1981 (9) TMI 237
Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Transfer of Shares– Power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal, Power to close register of members or debenture holders, Powers of Court to rectify register of members, Meetings and Proceedings - Presumptions to be where minutes duly drawn and signed
-
1981 (9) TMI 219
Appeal to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... tentions in these transactions and they do not represent any money spinning adventure, and as such a liberal and sympathetic view has to be taken. Having said so, the learned Member of the Board has reduced the penalty from Rs. 6,925 to Rs. 4,000 against the husband, and Rs. 4,025 to Rs. 2,000 in the case of the wife, Smt. Sudershan Boury. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted before us that if really a liberal and sympathetic view were to be taken, the Board should have and could have reduced the penalties having regard to the quantum involved in the case. We are pursuaded to agree with the submission so made. We feel it just and proper to reduce the penalty of Rs. 4,000 levied by the Member of the Board against Sri Kulbhushan Boury to Rs. 2,000 and so far as his wife is concerned as she had personally no role to play in the affair, we deem it just and proper to reduce the fine against her from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 212
... ...
... ... ..... erefore the assessee rsquo s onus was discharged. Reliance was placed on the decision of ITAT, Gauhati Bench dt. 15th April, 1972 in ITA No. 611 (Gau) of 1970-71 in Inder singh Sahani for asst. yr. 1963-64. 6. The ld. Deptl. Rep. stressed the inconsistencies in the statements ofthe depositor and relied on (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad), (1980) 122 ITR 341 (Guj) and (1979) 116 ITR 468 (All). 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. We are unable to up hold the penalty. The discrepancies in the statements of the depositor are not sufficient to bring home the charge of concealment on the part of the assessee, more so when the ITO did not cross examine the depositor on this affidavit and did not bring any evidence on record in the penalty proceedings to prove the charge of concealment. The assesee had discharged his onus under Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) by producing the depositor. Under these circumstances we cancel penalty of Rs. 5,000 levied under s. 271(1)(c).
-
1981 (9) TMI 209
... ...
... ... ..... which the Deptl. Rep. heavily relies, a careful perusal of the petition will show that the assessee was stressing time and again that the hundi loans were genuine but it was proposing a settlement only because the department was questioning the genuineness of the hundi loans and the managing partner dealing with the hundi transactions not being alive, the assessee found itself considerably handicapped in satisfying the department after passage of so many years. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the Commr.(A) that the settlement petition does not tantamount to admission of bogus hundi loans by the assessee. The facts and contentions considered by the Madras High Court in (1980) 126 ITR 270 are exactly similar to those in the assessee s case. Respectfully following this decision we would agree with the Commr.(A) that the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(a) in the circumstances of the case is invalid. Hence we decline to interfere. The Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 207
Additional Wealth Tax On Urban Asset ... ... ... ... ..... rtner because a partnership is after all an agreement to carry on business by any one or all of the partners on behalf of all. Therefore, even if we apply the two conditions, defining business premises in rule 1(i) of Paragraph B, to the share of the assessee-partner in a business premises treating it as an urban asset, we find that both the conditions are satisfied. Therefore, primarily the business premises in question are outside the scope of urban asset and, secondly, even if assumed to be within the scope of an urban asset held by a firm the interest of the partner which is deemed to be an urban asset will also fall within the scope of business premises and will again be exempt from the additional wealth-tax. Therefore, looking at it from any point of view, we are satisfied that the AAC was right in cancelling the additional wealth-tax imposed on the assessee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the order of the AAC. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 205
... ...
... ... ..... orders passed by the AAC are correct and have to be confirmed, in view of the fact that the Tribunal has already taken the same view for the asst. yrs.1973-74 to 1975-76. 8. Adverting to the cross objection filed by assessee, we find that the AAC has already given a finding that the ITO was not entitled to reopen the assessments u/s 147, as the reopening is based only on a mere change of opinion on the part of the ITO as all the material particulars were already before him at the time he made the original assessments. Besides, as pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee, even the view expressed by the audit party regarding the legal position as to whether or not the share income of the minors should be included in the total income of the assessee, does not constitute information within the meaning of s. 147. 9. In the result, we confirm the orders of the AAC and dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. The cross Objections filed by the assesee are treated as allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 202
... ...
... ... ..... assumption that the firm is the owner of the property and assets and there is a transfer of the same to the two individual partners, we agree with the assessee s contention that the transfer in order to be valid and effective so as to attract capital gains in this case or addition of profit under section 41(2) must be by means of an instrument in writing since the property of the assessee involved immovable assets. We do so because the contention is supported by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Narain and Brothers v. CIT 1969 73 ITR 423 and the proposition of law laid down therein has the agreement or concurrence of the Madras High Court as stated in the case of Bharani Pictures at page 250 of the report. For all the reasons stated above, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that there is no justification for levy of profit under section 41(2) or capital gains in respect of the impugned transaction. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 200
Female Member ... ... ... ... ..... in this case and that there being no other argument advanced, the disallowance maintained by the AAC at Rs. 31,490 is justified. 9. It may be observed that a similar issue had indirectly come up for consideration before a Special Bench of the Tribunal at Bombay in the case of ITO v. Sapt Textile Products India Ltd. 1981 7 Taxman 40. The question involved was whether the gratuity paid to an employee-director was to be taken into account for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40(c). By its order dated 20-4-1981, the Special Bench held that all payments made by a company as recompense for services to an employee-director were covered by the expression remuneration as used in section 40(c) and were, in any event, caught within the mischief of section 40(c). We, respectfully, adopt the line of reasoning given by the aforesaid Special Bench in coming to its conclusion in addition to the reasons we have given hereinabove. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 199
... ...
... ... ..... Hence we do not find any material to support the addition in the reassessment. We, however, agree with the ld. State Rep. that the plea of the appellant that such excess realisation had been considered for assessment in a later year does not make a difference because no assessment could be made in the status of tenants-in-common , as held by this Tribunal on many occasions. Besides the composition application having been accepted from asst. yr. 1975-76 and no regular assessment under s. 17(3) having been made the excess realisation if any could not have been taxed in the hands of that particular assessee who has a share in what is claimed as tenants-in-common . Anyway we need not pursue this reasoning too far as we have already held that there is no material to support the finding of any income escaped assessment for asst. yr. 1974-75. For these reasons we delete the disputed addition in these reassessments. The appeals are allowed. Institution fees shall be refunded in full.
-
1981 (9) TMI 197
... ...
... ... ..... r, that sufficient details are available in the books and vouchers that this being a company, the books are regularly audited and one more opportunity might be given to place the data before the Asstt. Commr. The appellants have also placed before us some data to show that in respect of these items, the expenses claimed by the appellants are reasonable compared to earlier years. 3. The ld. State Rep. supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the connected records. 5. We find that the Asstt. Commr. had upheld the disallowance of some of the expenses merely on the ground that details were not produced. At the same time he has given partial relief in some aspects. In our view the case requires some more examination. 6. We, therefore, set aside the assessments and remand to the Asstt. Commr. to dispose of the appeals after giving one more opportunity to produce evidence. In the circumstances 50 of the institution fee shall be refunded.
-
1981 (9) TMI 194
... ...
... ... ..... not, not valid service could be made on him. Such a view is fortified by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Prem Kumar Rastogi (1980) 124 ITR 381 (All). The Hon rsquo ble High Court took the view that under s. 282, read with order 5 Civil Procedure Code, valid service could be effected only on a recognised agent. There was no compliance of the material rules of order 5 Civil Procedure Code, and we, therefore, hold that no valid service was effected on the assessee. Similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Jayanthi Talkies Distributors (1978) 120 ITR 576 (Mad). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and following these authorities, we held that the assessee was validly served with the impugned notice. We, therefore, condone the delay and restore the case back to the file of the AAC with a direction that he will record findings on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 4. The appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 193
... ...
... ... ..... of the family to effect a partial partition. It is clearly borne out by the affidavits having been sworn by the about members of the family. So far as the minor children are concerned, their interest was being safeguarded by their father, meaning thereby the Karta. For the reasons, we unhesitatingly agree with the brilliant submissions of Shri Vaish, the ld. counsel for the assessee that the authorities below rejected the claim of partial partition wholly for insufficient reasons. Shri Vaish also relied on a decision of Amristar Bench of the Tribunal and some other authorities, which have been referred to in the decisions already referred to above, but we think there is no need to consider them, as the issue arising from the decision of the ITO and the AAC is fully clinched by the decision of Calcutta High Court, namely, 128 ITR 515 (Cal). We therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 36,600 and hold that partial partition was valid. 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 192
... ...
... ... ..... lready the ALV was shown. The ITO was free to draw any conclusion or inference from the facts having been disclosed by the assessee already at the time of the original assessments. It is not the duty of the assessee to help the ITO to draw a proper conclusion from a given set of facts. The only duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for making assessment and that duty was fully discharged by the assessee. The ITO cannot accuse the assessee for not disclosing the valuation which would have been acceptable to him at all times. The assessee disclosed ALV of the SOP which was accepted by the ITO but he changed it at a subsequent stage when he gathered some new material in respect of which there was no duty of the assessee to disclose them. For the reasons we hold that the AAC reached the correct conclusion and his combined order does not merit any interference. We, therefore, upheld the combined order of the AAC. 3. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 191
... ...
... ... ..... If that is the position in the case, the payment of Rs. 25,000 out of Rs. 30,014 appears to be a matter for consideration by the CIT(A). It is our considered opinion, at this stage, the we should sent back the matter to the CIT(A) for examining the various issues as discussed briefly above for fresh disposal and in accordance with law. The CIT(A) is also directed to pass speaking and separate orders in respect of both the assessment issues. Although in interpreting the tax laws equitable considerations are irrelevant, by the laws are to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice as observed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodhamal Kuthiala vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 6. In this view of the matter and as discussed above, we deem fit to set aside the order of the CIT(A) impugned before us and the matter is restored to his file for fresh disposal as indicated above. 7. For statistical purposes, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 190
... ...
... ... ..... fly above, the ITO did make inquiries from the assessee and after considering the various submissions and details furnished by the assessee the ITO made assessment in fact in the assessment order dt. 10th March, 1978, the ITO noted that the assessee attended alongwith Shri G.H. Asrani and details of accretion from year to year alongwith the relevant documentary evidence filed. The details of credits balance in the balance sheet also were filed. He went on to say that after necessary verification, income returned is accepted. These are the categorical findings of the ITO in the order passed under s. 143(3). The Commr. on the other hand, doubted the capability of the assessee to have possessed the capital formation as claimed. We have given our consideration to the facts of the case and we are of the opinion that there was no case for the Commr. to exercise the powers under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, in the present case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 189
Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... ion that the claim under section 35 was admissible, the question of reference under section 35(3) would not arise and also there would be no justification for the setting aside of the assessment by the Commissioner, directing that the ITO could dispose of the issue afresh after taking the approval of the competent authority. In our view, therefore, the learned Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order of the ITO. Hence, we cancel the Commissioner s order under section 263. 17. Taking up the appeal again under section 154, if we had sustained the Commissioner s order under section 263, we would have held that the learned Commissioner s action under section 154 was proper since he did rectify a mistake which was apparent from the record. But as we have cancelled the order under section 263, the order under section 154, which flows from it, must also be cancelled. We, accordingly, cancel this order also. 18. In the result both the appeals of the assessee succeed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 188
... ...
... ... ..... s available for deduction from the bonus payable under the Act. It is, therefore, clear that the categories covered by the Act, as amended, did not deal with customary bonus . In view of the above judgment, the inference is that the bonus paid in the present case in terms of the agreement between the employer and the employees goes beyond the purview of the Amending Act, which modifies the previous one by bringing within its range bonus on the basis of production or productivity. Accordingly, it will also go out of the purview of section 36(1)(ii). This view was also adopted by the Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench B camping at Hyderabad in IT Appeal No. 797 (Hyd.) of 1979 in the case of Ch. Yegniah and Sons v. ITO, Hyderabad dated 5-7-1981. In that view of the matter, we hold that the bonus paid by the appellant is allowable as deduction. 7. This para is not reproduced here as it pertains to a minor issue not covered in the synopsis. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 187
Income From House Property, Property Owned By Co-owners ... ... ... ... ..... ns, viz., equal proportions, in which they shared the profits of the erstwhile firm. In such a situation section 26 would clearly apply. According to section 26 where property consisting of buildings is owned by two or more persons and their respective shares are definite and ascertainable, such persons should not in respect of such property be assessed as an AOP, but the share of each such person should be assessed in their hands by computing the income from property in accordance with sections 22 to 25. The learned counsel for the assessee, as pointed out earlier, has undertaken to file the returns of income by the respective three partners, offering for assessment their share in the income from house properties as well as capital gains. We, therefore, hold that the assessment of the income from house property and the capital gains made in the hands of an AOP in this appeal is not sustainable in law. We, accordingly, delete the same. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
........
|
