Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: supreme court of india Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.026 seconds)

Oct 28 1998 (SC)

Rajendra Pratap Singh Vs. Rameshwar Prasad

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-1998

Reported in : AIR1999SC37; 1999(1)BLJR67; 1999(1)CTC87; JT1998(7)SC347; (1999)IMLJ51(SC); 1998(5)SCALE690; (1998)7SCC602; [1998]Supp2SCR444; 1999(1)LC76(SC)

..... edition) the word 'execute' is given the meaning as 'to complete as a legal instrument; to perform what is required to give validity to.' an instrument is usually executed through multifarious steps of different sequences. at the first instance, the parties might deliberate upon the terms and reach an agreement. next the terms so agreed upon would be reduced to writing .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1998 (SC)

M/S. Electrical Cable Development Association Vs. M/S. Arun Commercial ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-06-1998

Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)619; AIR1998SC1998; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)184; [1998]94CompCas53(SC); JT1998(3)SC738; 1998(3)SCALE449; (1998)5SCC396

orderrajendra babu, j.1. this appeal is preferred by a company incorporated under the companies act. the claim of the appellant is that an association which was an unregistered body known as 'indian cables maker's association' was inducted in the year 1969 as a tenant in the premises room no. 503, 5th floor, arun chambers, tardeo, bombay by respondent no. 2 under an agreement termed as 'leave and licence' dated 23rd september, 1969 at a rental of rs. 1500/ - p.m. out of which rs. 1000/- was towards the premises and rent of rs. 500/- p.m. was payable towards furniture and fixtures; that the name of the appellant was changed from indian cable maker's association into m/s. electrical cable development association also another un-registered body in the month of august 1972 and with the said association also a similar 'leave and licence' agreement was executed by the respondent no. 2 on a rental of rs. 1750/- p.m. out of which rent of rs. 1,000/- was towards the premises and rs. 750/- towards fixtures and furniture; that in the year 1976 the unregistered body decided to convert itself into a company in order to carry on its affairs more effectively and so registered as such under the companies act, 1956; that respondent no. 2 continued to receive rents from appellant in respect of the said premises. the appellant had also been using parking space in the building in question and had been making regular payments to respondent no. 1 society; that the appellant filed a suit for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1998 (SC)

income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. S. Radha Krishnan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-10-1998

Reported in : [2002]254ITR561(SC); (2001)9SCC406

order1. the respondent has been served but does not appear. the respondent objected to the inclusion of a sum of rs. 34,375 representing the gross dividend from a company called bms private limited for the assessment year 1972-73. the assessee's case was that, by virtue of section 104 of the income-tax act, 1961, the said amount had already suffered tax because it was undistributed profits in the hands of the company ; when it was distributed to the company's shareholders thereafter, the levying of further tax thereon amounted to double taxation. the objection was rejected by the authorities,whereupon a writ petition was filed before the high court. by the order under appeal, a learned single judge upheld the case of the assessee on the basis that taxation of the same amount in the hands of the company and the shareholder amounted to double taxation.2. the learned judge was in error. the question of double taxation must be decided having regard to who the assessee is. if the assessee is different, the question of double taxation would not arise. in the present case, the fact that the company had been made liable to tax on the amount did not mean that that amount, when paid as income to the shareholder, could not be taxed as income in the hands of the shareholder. the character of the amount changed, it being now the income of theshareholder.3. in the premises, the appeal is allowed. the judgment and order underappeal is set aside. the writ petition filed by the respondents in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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