Argument of the learned counsel on behalf of the Food Corporation of India that since the amount of Rs. 10,31,344 has admittedly been paid on account of interest, it retains its character as interest and, therefore, the Food Corporation of India must be allowed to deduct interest thereon at the rate in force, is not tenable
Even if the ground about contravention of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act is validly taken by the respondent, the same would have a bearing only at the point of time of the assessment of the petitioner-trust and would not be a material consideration in so far as granting of approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act is concerned.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT vs. Shri. C. Najeeb regarding penalty on income determined under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. Discover key questions of law, such as whether the Tribunal’s decision to levy income tax on 15% of total receipts is correct. Dive into the intricacies of assessment and penalty proceedings, including insights on undisclosed income, civil liability, and the interpretation of Section 158BFA. Uncover the court’s findings, providing clarity on the computation of undisclosed income and the imposition of penalties in this significant tax case.
We have read the order of the High Court (see [2000] 241 ITR 124) and the statement of case. Given the facts and circumstances, we do not think that any interference with the order of the High Court is called for. 2. The civil appeals are dismissed.
It was held that while granting registration under section 12A of the Act where the objects of the assessee society were genuine, merely because it had incurred certain expenditure, which fell within the category of benefit to a person under section 13(3) of the Act and hence, the assessee society was held to be hit by the provisions of section 13(1) (c) of the Act, does not entitle the CIT to deny the exemption of income claimed under section 11 of the Act.
Hanuman Prasad Bagri & Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (SC) Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] was filed before the Calcutta High Court on grounds of oppression and mismanagement. The learned Company Judge held that the Petitioners grievance in regard to ouster from the management of the company is legitimate and justified; that respondent No.3 had manoeuvred the matters in such a manner to result in the ouster of the Petitioner No.1 from the management of the Company.
The petitioners claiming to hold 4132 partly paid ordinary shares of Rs.100/-each and 3065 fully paid preference shares of Rs.100/-each in M/S Tinplate Dealers Association Private Limited ( the company) have filed this petition under Sections 397/398 and Section 111(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company and seeking rectification of the register of members. The main allegations relate to issue of further shares in the company in exclusion of the petitioners, issue of bonus shares contrary to the provisions of law, removal of the petitioners 1 and 2 as directors of the company, appointment of new directors on the Board etc. and they have sought for consequential reliefs.
Explore the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Sandhya Rani Dutta, addressing pivotal questions on Hindu personal law. The ruling asserts that, according to the Dayabhaga School, a male presence is essential for the constitution of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Delve into the detailed analysis of the case, where the court examines whether female heirs can form a joint Hindu family by agreement and impress upon inherited property the character of joint family property. Gain insights into the court’s interpretation and its impact on income tax assessments for the assessees involved.
These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 15th November, 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which, while confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs held that drawings, designs etc. relating to machinery or industrial technology were goods which were leviable to duty of customs on their transaction value at the time of their import.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.
