SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Del) 270

O.N.VOHRA, RAJINDAR SACHAR
INCOME TAX OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.L.VARMA, RAJIV BEHL, S.MUKHERJEE

Sachar

( 1 ) CAN the proviseous of S. 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for recovery of tax be resented to by Income Tax Officer. without seeking leave of the Company Judge u/s 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the case of a Company after winding up order has been made is the questioh arising in this appeal against the Judgent of the Learned Single Judge, who has held that obtaining leave u/s 446 (1) of the Companies Act was a condition precedent for seeking to recover tax by the Income Tax Officer.

( 2 ) M/s. National Conduits Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act. In respect of its employee, one S. S. Arora, the Company made deduction on account of income Tax from his salary, the total amount of which came to about Rs. 44,000. 00 for the Years 1961-62 to 1965-66. The company however, did not deposit the said amount with the Income Tax authorities. As a result on 6. 10. 1966 the Income Tax Officer. demanded from the company the payment of this amount, but to no effect. On 16. 1. 1969 an application was moved for winding up the company. An order of winding up was passed on 7. 5. 1969. On 24. 2. 1971 the I. T. O. requested the Official Liquidator for payment of Rs.







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top