Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 6 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
General Commercial Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 30 April, 1964
The only factor that has been taken against the assessee
having continued its business of financing, other than banking, is the
fact that it advanced no loan to anybody until some time, in September,
1952, but mere inactivity for a period does not mean that its business
ceased to exist or that it did not carry on business at all. A business may
be inactive for a period and merely because of the dormancy of the business, the conclusion that it has ceased does not arise. . This is the view
that has prevailed in General Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-
Banking Companies Act, 1949
Inderchand Hari Ram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And C.P. & ... on 4 March, 1952
tax, [1935] 3 I.T.R. 350,. 355 and Inderchand Hari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, . [1953] 23 I.T.R. 437, 442. Another
matter that has been referred to in this connection is the resolution passed
by the assessee on March 10, 1951--. "Resolved that the company do
continue and carry on such business for one or the other of its objects as
mentioned in the memorandum of association of the company as may be
decided upon by the board of directors, from time to time. " The contention in this respect has been that the board of directors never took decision
to continue the remaining part of the financing business by the assessee
after it had dropped its banking business. The Tribunal rightly pointed
out that the memorandum of association had many objects in it covering
almost the whole of the field under Section 277F of the Indian Companies
Act, 1913, and, of course under Section 6 of Act 10 of ,1949. The assessee
was not embarking on the business of all the objects at once. The resolution was meant to cover such of the objects with which the assessee was
not immediately dealing so as to empower the directors to develop its
business further with regard to those objects. This resolution cannot
possibly be interpreted to mean that the assessee put a stop to its whole
business on March 10, 1951, leaving it to a resolution of the directors to
start it over again. The consequence is that the Tribunal had material
before it on which it could hold that the assessee had carried on the business of financing and money-lending after March 10, 1951, and the answer
to the first question is in the affirmative, ,