Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 70 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 70 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mrs. M.M. Roy vs N.V.P. Pandian on 12 July, 1984
In the case of M.N. Roy v. N.V.P. Parutian, 1984 (II) M.LJ. 303 a suit was laid with the following averments. The defendant was a building contractor known to the plaintiff who appeared to be a widow. The plaintiff was making efforts to have her son admitted in the Madras Medical College. The defendant came forward to help her if she would lend him some money. Accordingly, the plaintiff parted with Rs. 15,000 in all. Seat in the Medical College was not secured. The defendant executed an agreement undertaking to pay the money. Since he failed to act as per that agreement the plaintiff instituted a suit for the refund of the money. The trial Court decreed the suit and, the appellate Court reversed the decree. On appeal to this Court, it was observed, that
"The phrase in pari delicto suggests two things. First, there should be an act of delinquency, an act repugnant to law, on illegal act. Secondly, both the parties should be delinquent and that too, equally, with the same decree of guilt. The word "Possidentis" indicates the fact of possession as owner. It excludes those whose possession is precarious, terminable at will by another person, like the possession of a lessee, an agent or a borrower."
Section 65 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Smt. Surasaibalini Debi vs Phanindra Mohan Majumdar on 27 October, 1964
In the case of Surasaibalini Debi v. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar, , the real owner brought the suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession from the owner. The defendant has taken the plea of "in pari delicto". The facts of the said case are P started certain business with his own funds, and since he was in the employment of the Court of Wards and as the Service Rules governing the employment did not permit to carry on any trade or business, he entered into an agreement with one G and held out G as owner of the business. P submitted the returns for the purposes of income-tax of the profits of the business in the name of G and dealt with the authorities as if he was the Manager and not the owner of the business. After some years, he was required to leave temporarily the city of business on medical advice. At that time, he entrusted the management of the business to G with all its effects and on the understanding that upon his return, G was to hand over to him possession and management of business. After his return, P made demands on G to hand over possession and management of the business which were refused by G. In a suit brought by P for declaration of his title and delivery of possession of the business, it was contended on behalf of G, that the arrangement for holding out G as a
nominal owner was made by P to evade liability to pay income tax and thereby to defeat the provisions of the Income Tax Act, that the agreement under which business was to be held by G was invalid and P was riot entitled to claim possession of the business relying upon his own unlawful conduct. It was further held,
"It was not the object of the parties at the time when the transaction was entered into to circumvent or to defeat the provisions of the Income Tax Act by taking advantage of the fact that the business stood in the name of G, the nominal owner. It was true, that the plaintiff obtained benefit of a lower rate of tax for the business income and his personal income escaped taxation. But, it could not on that account be held that the transaction on which he founded his claim was unlawful. In claiming a decree for possession from the defendant, the plaintiff did not plead any invalidity of the transaction. He merely pleaded his title to the business, entrustment thereof to G and refusal on part of G to deliver possession when demanded and when these things were established, the plaintiff as the owner of the business, was not prevented from enforcing that title against the defendant, there being no taint attaching to the entrustment".
Dip Narain Singh vs Nageshar Prasad And Ors. on 8 November, 1929
18. The respondent/plaintiff relied upon the case of DIP Narain Singh v. Nageshar Prasad, A.I.R. 1930 All. 1. That is the case, where a distinction has been drawn between the agreement forbidden by law and one declared void. In that context, it was held that,
"There is a clear distinction between an agreement which may be forbidden by law and one which is merely declared to be void. In the former case, the Legislature penalises it or prohibits it. In the latter case, it merely refuses to give effect to it. If a void contract has been carried out and consideration has passed the promisor may not in equity be allowed to go back upon it without restoring the benefit which he has received.