Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.28 seconds)
Documents citing British Transport Co. Ltd. vs Suraj Bhan And Ors. on 15 January, 1962

Shadilal vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 13 March, 2002

6. The contention of the applicant is also not acceptable that he had filed the revised return under the amnesty scheme. When he was caught for suppressing the cost of the truck, only thereafter, he had filed the revised return. The points raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the sale agreement was not filed and Avtarsingh, the purchaser was not examined, have no serious bearing on the matter in controversy because, the applicant himself has filed two returns. In one return, he has shown the price of the truck as Rs. 80,000 and in the second, the price is mentioned as Rs. 1,30,000. Therefore, both the aforesaid authorities are not helpful to the applicant. In the case of B. T. X. Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Suraj Bhan [1989] 177 ITR 425 (Guj), the court had come to the conclusion that by filing the return the assessee had made a bona fide mistake discovered subsequently, there was no mens rea, and therefore, the assessee was not liable for prosecution under Section 276C. The facts of this case are altogether different than the case on hand.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Renuka Batra vs Grindlays Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 11 February, 1980

In British Transport Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), debt attached was payable at Agra where the executing Court was situated and therefore, order of his attachment at Delhi could be issued. However, it has been observed therein that "it has appeared to us that on an examination of the Code of Civil Procedure we must hold that it is the situs of the debt that will decide the jurisdiction of the execution Court and not the situs of the debtor from whom the debt is payable to the judgment-debtor".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Yerra Nagabhushanam on 19 March, 1997

11. To the same effect also is the law declared by the High Court of Gujarat in B.T.X. Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Suraj Bhan . However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the very fact that A-2 filed a revised return would ipso facto prove the means rea or wilfullness on the part of A-2. But the explanation offered by A-2 before the Department was that when the Department pointed out certain mistakes, he (A-2) accepted the mistakes only to buy peace with the Department. This explanation offered by A-2 was accepted by the court below. What is to be noted, in this context, is whether by filing a revised return as suggested by the Department the accused accepted also the fact that he filed a false return.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - B S Raikote - Full Document

M.A.A. Raoof vs K.G. Lakshmipathi on 9 July, 1968

6. Sri K. N. Subramaniam has not been able to cite any other decision to controvert the view which I have taken in respect of shares. Shri V. Shyamalam, learned Counsel for the decree-holder has not been able to cite any direct case on the point, but the case which he has cited supports the view which I have taken. The case is The British Transport Company Limited, Delhi v. Suraj Shan and Ors. I.L.R. . There one Suraj Bhan had obtained a money decree against one Sardar Singh and filed the execution petition in the Court at Agra by attaching inter alia an amount alleged to be payable to the judgment-debtor Sardar Singh by the appellant British Transport Company Limited, Delhi. The British Transport Company Limited, Delhi had taken on lease some buses belonging to Sardar Singh and was liable to pay for Sardar Singh's share Rs. 4 per day as rent. It was the total of such amounts that was sought to be attached. It was held that the rent was payable at Agra and therefore the debt was due to the judgment-debtor at Agra. The British Transport Company Limited, Delhi, however, took objection to the jurisdiction of the executing Court on the ground that they were residents at Delhi, outside the limits of the Agra Court. Their objection was repelled by the Court and it was held that under Section 51 (b), Civil Procedure Code, since what was sought to be attached was a debt its situs alone determined the jurisdiction, and sines the debt was payable at Agra it was the Agra Court, which had jurisdiction. It was pointed out that it was not the situs of the debtor (The British Transport Company Limited, Delhi) that determined the question of jurisdiction. It was observed further that the mere circumstance that under Order 21, Rule 46 Civil Procedure Code notice had to go to the debtor (garnishee) at Delhi outside the jurisdiction of the Court was immaterial. By way of analogy it was pointed out that even in the case of a regular suit, the Court may be properly seized of the suit on account of the accrual of the cause of action within the Court's limits and the defendants may be residing outside the jurisdiction, but that would not oust the jurisdiction. The learned Judges distinguished the Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Begg.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M.A.A. Raoof vs K.G. Lakshmipathi on 9 July, 1968

5. Sri K. K. Subramaniam has not been able to cite any other decision to controvert the view which I have taken in respect of shares. Sri V. Shvamalam, learned Counsel for the decree-holder, has not been able to cite any direct case on the point, but the case which he has cited supports the view which I have taken. The case is the British Transport Co. Ltd., Delhi v. Suraj Bhan, . There one Suraj Bhan had obtained a money decree against one Sardar Singh and filed the execution petition in the Court at Agra by attaching inter alia an amount alleged to be payable to the judgment-debtor Sardar Singh by the appellant British Transport Co. Ltd., Delhi. The British Transport Co. Ltd., Delhi had taken on lease some buses belonging to Sardar Singh and was liable to pay for Sardar Singh's share Rs. 4/- per day as rent. It was the total of such amounts that was sought to be attached. It was held that the rent was payable at Agra and therefore the debt was due to the judgment-debtor at Agra. The British Transport Co., Ltd., Delhi, however, took objection to the jurisdiction of the executing Court on the ground that they were residents at Delhi, outside the limits of the Agra Court. Their objection was repelled by the Court and it was held that under Section 51(b), C. P. C., since what was sought to be attached was a debt its situs alone determined the jurisdiction, and since the debt was payable at Agra it was the Agra Court, which had jurisdiction. It was pointed out that it was not the situs of the debtor (The British Transport Co., Ltd., Delhi) that determined the question of jurisdiction. It was observed further that the mere circumstance that under Order 21, Rule 46, C. P. C. notice had to go to the debtor (garnishee) at Delhi outside the jurisdiction of the Court was immaterial. By way of analogy it was pointed out that even in the case of a regular suit, the Court may be properly seized of the suit on account of the accrual of the cause of action within the Court's limits and the defendants may be residing outside the jurisdiction, but that would not oust the jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1