Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1952 1952 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 27 of 27 Records

• 1952 (4) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r not the one they have applied. Quite obviously, in the light of the description of the appli- cant s business given by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner and reproduced at the beginning of this order, the applicant is not a dealer, as he is not engaged in the business of selling. His registration as a dealer, in so far as his business of dyeing is concerned, is not there- fore in order. Cancellation of the registration certificate given to him would automatically make taxable the sales made to him of dyeing materials. 6. So far as the real question for consideration in this case is concerned, I am clear in my mind that it cannot be distinguished from Rajasthan Printing Litho Works Ltd. v. The State(1). The transac- tions taxed are not sales. As my learned colleague agrees with this view, the order of the learned Commissioner is set aside and the appli- cation for revision is allowed. M.R. JOSHI, MEMBER.-I agree. Application allowed. (1) 1951 N.L.J. 613 3 S.T.C. 62.

  ---

• 1952 (4) TMI 28 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... But I have considered also the possibility of the applicant being the consignor, instead of the consignee. Whatever be the position, it should be clear that there has been no transfer of property to the Railway Company or, for that matter, to anyone else. It is im- material if the amount received by way of damages should represent the full price of the goods lost. The learned Commissioner has obvi- ously overlooked the fact that the Act contemplates a tax on sales. Unless there has been a sale, in other words, unless there has been a transfer of property, no question of levying any tax arises. In a case like this, where goods have been lost, no question arises of a transfer of property in them-the loss of goods giving rise only to actionable claims, which have been specifically excluded from the defini- tion of goods in Section 2(d) of the Act. The application succeeds on the ground pressed. The amount in question should not be included in the turnover. Application allowed.

  ---

• 1952 (4) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the expression that is used in Section 9 is not a registered dealer but a dealer which will be construed in the sense in which it is used in Section 2(b). It appears to me that when the amendment was introduced, the legislature over- looked this. Every assessee has to be a registered dealer and the ex- pression in Section 9 should be a registered dealer and not dealer. If an assessee has not registered himself he may be punishable for that, but not for not maintaining correct accounts, which is an obligation cast on registered dealers only. On the facts of the case, as stated already, no proof has been let in that this accused is a registered dealer within the meaning of the term of Section 2 (g-1) of the Act. In the absence of such proof he cannot be prosecuted under Section 13 read with Section 15(h) of the Act. I must say that the credit of taking this point entirely goes to Mr. Rama Rao who appears for the accused. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1952 (4) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
  

  Company – Membership of, Shares warrants and entries in register of members

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on the share certificate. This is really the sense in which the word shareholder has been used in section 18(5) and section 49B of the Indian Income-tax Act. We are unable to accede to the contention that a person who has an equitable right to the shares is the shareholder within the meaning of this word in the Act. In that view, an equitable mortgagee would also be a shareholder along with the legal owner and though the former does not receive dividend he may be held liable for suppressing this income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such a construction is hardly reasonable. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in Shakti Mills case cited supra and hold that the assessee is not entitled to the benefits of section 16(2) and section 18(5) because he is not registered as a shareholder. 6. The reference is answered in the negative. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Paper book costs will be paid by the assessee.

  ---

• 1952 (4) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN
  

  Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Power of court to rectify register of members and Validity of acts of directors

  ---

• 1952 (4) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Company – Incorporation of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nt. The Regulations framed assigned the duty of making investigations into these matters to the above officers and directed them to file the complaint in such matters. But these regulations do not take away the right of any citizen to file a complaint under the Companies Act. In the absence, therefore, of any special provision requiring that the complaint should be filed by a particular person, a complaint either by any citizen or a member of the company or by the Assistant Registrar will be a valid complaint. The complaint, therefore, filed in this case is a valid one and the acquittal on that ground is wrong and is therefore set aside. The case is remanded to the lower court for disposal according to law. The respondents have filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in which they have set out in detail the reasons for not calling the meeting in time. The lower court will give due weight to what is stated in the petition and dispose of the case according to law.

  ---

• 1952 (4) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Filling of casual vacancies among

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... R. Veeramani who was one director who has been in active management resigned his place as an elected director on 11th November, 1950, and as part of the same proceedings he became a nominated director. It is clear that this manoeuvre was adopted for co-opting a director of the choice of the managing agents and it is open to the objection that, it was made with a view to strengthen the hands of the managing agents and not in the interests of the shareholders. We agree with Krishnaswami Naidu, J. that this co-option cannot be upheld. It was argued by Mr. V. Radhakrishnayya the learned advocate for the appellant that the validity of this co-option cannot be gone into in these proceedings, but the matter is concluded by the judgment of this court dated 9th February, 1951, and even otherwise the decision, on the validity of the co-option is incidental to the exercise of the powers under section 76(3) of the Companies Act. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

  ---

12