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.
Sale price means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for transfer of goods on hire purchase. The word sale occurring in Sec. 2(h) must have the meaning ascribed to it as in Section 2(g) when the word sale includes transfer of goods on hire purchase, then whatever is the amount which is paid/payable to the dealer on such a transfer would be included within the meaning
Law is settled- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible
The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal’s order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal.
The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether notional interest on interest-free deposit received by the assessee against letting of property could be taken into account in cases falling under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) In other words, whether notional interest would form part of actual rent received or receivable under section 23(1)(b) ?
In our opinion, the view which we are taking is also fortified by the proviso to s. 119 of the Act which specifically provides that the Board cannot issue instructions to the IT authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner as well as not to interfere with the discretion of the CIT(A) in exercise of his appellate functions.
The High Court relying on Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and following the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T., U.P. v. Wheeler Club Limited {(1963) 49 ITR 52} and some observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (155 ITR 373)
