|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 21 Records
-
1970 (6) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h an ulterior purpose, do not establish such allegations. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the absence of the Respondents Haridas Mundhra and Bhubaneshwar Prosad Sinha from the witness-box cannot make any difference in the results of these applications. 413. For the reasons recorded above, all these applications are dismissed with costs. The costs of the first five applications will be treated as of a hearing of a suit and certified for two counsel. The costs of the sixth application on Chamber Summons relating to the meeting of August 30, 1969, will be treated as a Chamber Summons but certified for counsel. All interim orders vacated. 414. Mr. Mukherjee for the Petitioner orally asked for a stay of this order which I refuse having regard to my finding that this is an utter abuse of the procedure under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act and having regard to my finding that this application is not bona fide and my assessment of Mr. Hoon's testimony in this case.
-
1970 (6) TMI 45 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er that the petitioner has not collected tax from the buyers, and although his case does not expressly fall within the amended provision of law, he desires to make a request to the appropriate authorities not to levy tax on him. It is open to him to do so, if he is so advised, and we have no reason to suppose that the appropriate authority will not consider it on merits and deal with it in accordance with law. In W. P. No. 2531 of 1968, a similar contention was advanced and it was contended that the petitioner had filed nil returns as he had not collected any tax. If he is entitled to get exemption on the transactions, he may make appropriate representation, and we believe that the appropriate authority will consider the request on its merits and decide it in accordance with law. We make no observation in that behalf. Since no other contention was raised in any of the cases, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1970 (6) TMI 44 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... energy supplied is in no way related to the electric energy but only depends upon the energy available in the chemical reaction taking place within the various explosive chemicals utilised in the detonator tube. As soon as the fuse is ignited, the blast would take place automatically and there will be nothing left for the electric energy and the purpose of the detonator also comes to an end with the blast. It is, therefore, clear that save for the purpose of ignition electric detonator has to depend wholly on the explosive power dependent on the chemical mixture used in it. It has no relation to the electric energy supplied. In these circumstances, the detonator by its nature and function cannot be said to be an electric apparatus or appliance or electrical goods. In this premises the decision of the Tribunal is not open to interference. This tax revision case is, therefore, devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1970 (6) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the facts and circumstances of this case as explained elsewhere in our judgment. For these reasons we answer this question also in the affirmative in favour of the revenue. We hold that the Commissioner, in this case the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, has authority and jurisdiction under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with rule 80A to admit or rely on the report of the Commercial Tax Officer pursuant to an enquiry under section 14(1) of the Act even though it was initiated before the filing of the revision petition but was considered along with the revision petition with reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Having regard to the facts of this case the assessee shall pay one set of costs for these two references. Both these references are disposed of accordingly by this one judgment. BASU, J.-I agree. References answered accordingly.
-
1970 (6) TMI 42 - CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
Power of inspectors to carry investigation into affairs of related companies ... ... ... ... ..... se (supra). It would be surprising, though not logically impossible, if Parliament had provided that a man s evidence might be used against him, while giving him at the same time a right to withhold that evidence. I do not think that Parliament has done so in the Act of 1967. On this part of the case I have had the assistance of a judgment of Judge Gillis on the separate trial of Mr. Harris s co-defendants, Mr. Sowley and Mr. Collins. Assuming for the purposes of his judgment that the unamended Act did not enable the evidence to be given, he held mdash as I would also have been prepared to hold if I had made the same assumption mdash that the Act of 1967 made admissible the answers which they gave in examination held before that Act was passed. It was argued that the evidence, even if admissible in law, should be excluded by the court in the exercise of its discretion. As Mr. Harris has since been acquitted, it would be useless to state my reasons for rejecting this argument.
-
1970 (6) TMI 41 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... in my judgment, sufficient ground for an order under section 210 of the Act of 1948 which requires a course of oppressive conduct continued up to the date of the petition. For these reasons the petitioner has, in my judgment, failed to establish a case for an order under section 210. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to do more than mention one final matter touched on in the argument. An order under section 210 cannot be made unless the court is of opinion, that to wind up the company would unfairly prejudice that part of the members. No evidence directed to this point has been led before me and Mr. Balcombe submitted that for that reason alone the claim uuder section 210 would be bound to fail. Mr. Walton on the other hand, in effect, suggested that it was a case of what might be called res ipsa loquitur. I need not decide which of those contentions is right. In the result, I make the usual winding up order. Solicitors Arbeid and Co. Devenport, Lyons and Co.
-
1970 (6) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Director – Disclosure of interest by, Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... er s father entered into several years ago. He became a co-owner of that business by succession on his father s death. It is not disputed that he has not been taking any direct interest in the said business, which was being managed by one of his brothers. There is also no case that the petitioner took any unfair advantage in respect of the continuance of that arrangement by virtue of his position as director. The continuance of the arrangement was also to the advantage of the company. It is not also disputed that the interest that the petitioner had in the said arrangement as a co-owner of the above business was well-known at all times to all the directors. In these circumstances, I relieve the petitioner of all liabilities in any proceeding that might be taken against him in any court for the contravention of section 299(1) of the Act. This petition is allowed to the above extent, and dismissed in other respects. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.
-
1970 (6) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1970 (6) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Revision - Order in revision - Elaborate order ... ... ... ... ..... s aspect. In revision what they thought necessary was to modify only the order with regard to penalty and fine. That is why they have said that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, they thought it proper only to reduce the fine and penalty imposed. The learned counsel contends that inasmuch as reasons in relation to the conclusion reached as to the quality and quantity of the goods have not been given in the order of the Government, the order must be set aside. We do not agree with this contention. That apart, when both the authorities are at one on the question whether the tobacco seized is the same as covered by the sale note, we do not think that it is a case where we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and quash the order of the Government on the simple ground that the revising authority did not make a detailed order. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by our learned brother. We accordingly dismiss this appeal.
-
1970 (6) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Petitioner, a partnership firm, has filed this application for obtaining a writ to quash and set aside the notices served upon it under section 148 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the reassessment of its income
-
1970 (6) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Questions as to the competence of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to make an assessment on an assessee deriving income from growing and manufacturing tea without the assessment of such assessee being completed under the Indian Income-tax Act have been raised in this application
-
1970 (6) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner on ground that assessee had failed to disclose primary facts
-
1970 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Adventure in the nature of trade - assessee, exhibitor of cinemas buys shares in film company with intention to re-sell it - whether it is adventure in nature of trade
-
1970 (6) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - best judgment assessment - assessee had not complied with a notice u/s 18(2) to file the returns served after the expiry of the assessment year - order of assessment challenged on grounds that the Act did not levy any charge on the income derived prior to November 1, 1956, from lands that were situated In the former State of Bombaly but included in the new State of Mysore
-
1970 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Technical assistance and "know-how" received from foreign company for the erection of the petitioner's factory in India - remittances made by petitioner with deducting TDS - whether demand made from petitioner would be covered by the time-limitations prescribed in section 34(3)of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1970 (6) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment - whether a certain intimation received by the Income-tax Officer expressing the opinion of the audit department as to the correct interpretation' of section 23(2) could be said to constitute "information" on which the Income-tax Officer could act for the purpose of initiating proceedings for reassessment against the petitioner under section 147(h)
-
1970 (6) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - petitioner is a public limited company which owns plantations in the area of the former State of Mysore - levy of tax on income derived before 1-11-1956
-
1970 (6) TMI 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in refusing the renewal of registration of the firm under section 26A while exercising the discretion vested in him under section 23(4) of the Act of which a reference was made in the order under section 26A
-
1970 (6) TMI 3 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner, though becomes liable to pay the tax assessed on his father u/s 24, he is not a defaulter and unless the petitioner is a defaulter the amount cannot be recovered from him u/s 42 - held that unless the legal representative is served with a notice of demand, he does not become an assessee in default - amount assessed against deceased cannot be recovered u/s 42
-
1970 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Challenge to the order committing the petitioner for trial to the Sessions Court in respect of charges under sections 276(d) and 276B - on the ground that the charge under section 276B is violative of article 20(1) of the Constitution of India and that the charge under section 276(d) is not otherwise sustainable
|
