Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:companies act 1956 preamble 1  Year:1967

May 02 1967

Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad Vs. Motors and General Stores (P ...

  • Decided on : 02-May-1967

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [1967]66ITR692(SC); [1967]3SCR876

... etc., for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Mr. Narasaraju also referred to the preamble in which the resolution of the Board of Directors dated September 9, 1955 is quoted and also the resolution of the meeting of the general body of the assessee-company held on October 4, 1955, authorising the ... under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the following question of law : ' (1) Whether the transaction dated 21-2-1956 amounts to a sale within the purview of the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act; alternatively, (2) Whether, the consideration for the ... the transaction of February 21, 1956 was a sale and whether the income-tax authorities were entitled to include the amount of Rs. 43,568/-as profits under section 10(2) (vii) of the Income-tax Act as representing the excess of the consideration realised by the assessee-company over the written down ... 1956-57, the assessee-company submitted a return of income showing a sum of Rs. 9,823/-as profits derived from the transaction. The Income-tax Officer found that the value realised exceeded the written down value by Rs. 43,568/- and accordingly computed the profits under section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ... meeting of the general body of the assessee-company held on October 4, 1955, authorising the Managing Director to negotiate 'for the sale of the entire concern known by the name of Sree Rama Talkies'. But, in our opinion, neither the recital in the preamble nor the resolution of the Board of ...

Apr 06 1967

Standard Literature Co. Private Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) ...

  • Decided on : 06-Apr-1967

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1968Cal1,71CWN719

... The petitioner No. 1. Standard Literature Company Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are directors and shareholders thereof. Prior to September 19, 1963 and commencing from the year 1916, this Company was a tenant in ... 1955 S. C. 13, : [1954]26ITR713(SC) , : [1956]29ITR390(SC) and 64 Cal WN 1 :(AIR 1960 Cal 1691 (SB). 24. But where there is any guide line in the Act. which may be gathered from the objects and reasons or the preamble or the body of the Act, by which the classification ... company') is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are directors and shareholders thereof. Prior to September 19, 1963 and commencing from the year 1916, this Company was a tenant in respect of room nos. 22, 24, 27, 28 in the ground floor and Nos. 46. 62. 66, 57, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 66/1 ... of the Act are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 fails The result is that all the three objections taken against the vires of the Act fail In this particular case, a special point is taken that the appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and as ... lands The proviso to Section 1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 states that the 1956 Act does not apply to any premises belonging to Government. Therefore, where the tenancy of a person has been properly determined under the Transfer of Propertv Act, then in the case of ...

Sep 29 1967

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

  • Decided on : 29-Sep-1967

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1968Cal407,72CWN440

... company or a firm is the petitioner. He takes the objection that a company is not entitled to take advantage of Article 19 or 21. So far as a company is concerned it has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court, in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811 that a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 ... R. Das. C J. In : [1959]35ITR190(SC) . is:'to secure to all persons, citizens or non-citizens the equality of status and of opportunity referred to in the glorious preamble of our Constitution. It combines the English doctrine of the rule of law and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the American Federal Constitution which enjoins that ... . In this case the petitioner No. 1 is the Jay Engineering Works Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Besides the company, there are six other petitioners who are in the managerial and supervisory staff of the company. So far as the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, the petitioner No. 1 which is a company cannot claim any relief on the ground ... that a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 was not a citizen within the meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution and cannot ask for the enforcement of a fundamental right granted to citizens under Article 19. In the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. v. State of Bihar : [1964]6SCR885 it was held that Article 18 did not apply to companies and corporations ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //