It also had unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. The respondents, a registered firm, were assessed for the assessment year 1950- 51, at the rate or rates applicable to income, profits and gains arising or accruing in Part A States. The assessee had unabsorbed investment allowance of previous years. The corroboration in material particulars must be such as to connect or identify each of the accused with the offence. This price when received by the Bank was sent by the Bank by means of Bank Draft to the respondents at Ratlam who sent them for being cashed and credited to their account at Bombay.
2,87,15,912, thereby showing the returned income as ‘Nil’. under Order 1, Rule 10, Code advocates Supreme Court of India Civil Procedure, in the action by the injured third party against the assured. The appellant/assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing paper. , the confession has been made exhibit before you, but that previous statement, you are further to bear in mind, cannot corroborate his latter statement, viz. The facts of the case and the progressive stages of the litigation are fully stated in the judgment of my learned brother, and it is not necessary to restate them here in detail.
In the present case, a previous statement of an approver, viz. Therefore, instead of allowing the assessee to carry forward investment allowance, the Assessing Officer adjusted the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years, namely 1983-84, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 (part), and accepted ‘Nil’ income return as filed by the assessee, but on the aforesaid basis. The plea of the assessee before the High advocates Supreme Court of India was that in the absence of any claim by the assessee towards depreciation allowance, the assessing authority could not erroneously assume that such a claim would be untenable under the provisions of the Act and could not thrust the deduction of carrying forward depreciation allowance, when the assessee had chosen to have set off of unabsorbed investment allowance and it is the assessee whose option should prevail.
The course of their business was this: they sent out agents to various parts of India. it must be evidence which implicates him, that is, which conforms in some material particulars not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner (accused) committed it. It would be sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. The facts lie in a short compass. In the latter case the Railway Receipts lawyers in Supreme Court of India favour of self were sent through a Bank deliverable against payment of the Demand Draft drawn upon the buyers and sent with the Railway Receipts.
6 supra, the existing pay of the staff should be protected. In fact, the income for that year after showing exemptions, deductions and additions, which are to be made in terms of Sections 28 onward relating to computation of the business income, was arrived at ? , the statements that have been made by him before you in this advocates Supreme Court of India. It was also argued that even if the provision of law was not very clear and was susceptible to two interpretations, one which was more beneficial to the assessee had to be given effect to.
Lastly, it was pointed out that this would not cause any hardship to the employee; for if the tribunal granted permission, the employee would not get anything from the date of his suspension with out pay, while if the permission was refused he would be entitled to his back wages from such date. It had filed its return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 1991-92 declaring its income as ‘Nil’. It was pointed out that in such a case the employer, would be justified in suspending the employee without’ pay as the time taken by the tribunal to accord permission under s.
Corroborative evidence, you should bear in mind, is evidence which shows or tends to show that the story of the accomplice that the accused committed the crime is true. 487 expected to continue paying the employee thereafter. They canvassed orders and sometimes took advance payments in full or in part and after deducting their expenses, remitted the balance to the respondents at Ratlam through Bank drafts etc.
This is contrary to the object of Chapter VIII which is to protect the injured third party and not the insurer. When a newspaper establishment is re-classified as per para. The insurer is neither a necessary nor a proper party. But future increments and scales should be those applicable to the class of paper into which it falls. 33 of the Act was beyond the control of the employer. The goods ordered were sent to the customers either by V.
It would suffice if the factual basis giving rise to the main controversy in the case be stated. According to the Assessing Officer, it was not the investment allowance, but unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years which had to be set off first by giving priority to the unabsorbed depreciation. The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. 129 Evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony, which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect the accused with the crime.
In its income-tax return, however, it chose to carry forward investment allowance and claimed set off of the said unabsorbed investment allowance to the extent of ?