1983 | Judgment Lord Scarman (delivering the Judgment of the Board) 1. Ever since its incorporation in 1950 River Estates Sdn Bhd the appellant‚ has been engaged commercially in the extraction of timber and in plantation in north-east Borneo. On 15 December 1973 the Director-General of Inland Revenue (“the Revenue”) served upon the appellant notices of additional assessment to income tax for the years of assessment 1968–72. The assessments were:— 1968 .... .... .... .... |
Premium Estates of the realm Income Source
MANU/SC/0089/1954 Equivalent Citation: AIR1954SC364‚ [1954]25ITR449(SC)‚ [1955]1SCR393 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Decided On: 01.04.1954 Appellants: Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. Vs. Respondent: The Government of Hyderabad Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Sudhi Ranjan Das‚ Bhagwati and B. Jagannadhadas‚ JJ. Subject: Direct Taxation Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Partnership Act - Section 4 Authorities Referred: Powell’s Law of Agency; Halsbury’s Laws of England - Hailsham
Premium Corporation Types of business entity
Before The Hon’ble High Court of Madras‚ Tamil Nadu Application No _____/1983 C.V. George……………………...………………….………………………... Appellant v. Marshall Sons.………………………...………………............................ Respondent Table of Contents Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………..2 Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………2 Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………..3 Questions Presented……………………………………………………………....4 Summary of Pleadings……………………………………………………………5 Pleadings…………………………………………………………………………8
Premium Contract Contract law
physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear‚ as in the cases at bar. The effects of threats and intimidation aside‚ appellant being the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother BBB‚ moral ascendancy substituted for intimidation. Indeed‚ in rape committed by a close kin‚ such as the victim ’s father‚ stepfather‚ uncle‚ or the common-law spouse of her mother‚ it is not necessary
Premium Rape
are the appellant and the respondents. (2) Who is the ‘appellant’? Who is the ‘respondent’? In this case‚ the appellant is Mileva Novakovic and the respondents are Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic. (3) Please explain why the parties are not referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendant’? Parties are called as the plaintiff and defendant when it is the first hearing of a case. In this case it is not an original case but had been appealed. Hence the two parties would be appellant and respondents
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE‚ A. D. 2014 Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2012 LAVERN LONGSWORTH Appellant v THE QUEEN Respondent ______ BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Dennis Morrison The Hon. Mr. Justice Samuel Awich The Hon. Madam Justice Minnet Hafiz-Bertram Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal G. P. Smith S. C. along with L. Mendes for the appellant C. Vidal S.C.‚ Director of Public Prosecutions‚ along with S. Smith for the respondent ______ 10‚ 21 and 27 June‚ and 7 November
Premium Domestic violence Abuse
questions of law that have arisen in these appeals. The appellant initially was a statutory authority under International Airport Authority of India Act. 1971 (for short‚ ’IAAI Act’) and on its repeal by the Airports Authority of India Act‚ 1994 was amalgamated with National Airport Authority (for short‚ the ’NAA’) under single nomenclature‚ namely‚ IAAI. The IAAI is now reconstituted as a company under Companies Act‚ 1956. The appellants engaged‚ as contract labour the respondent union’s members
Premium Employment Trade union
Facts The appellant‚ Mr Sproud was assaulted by two security guards who were employees of the respondent‚ Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited. The appellant was behaving aggressively and rudely in a pizza shop after he got seriously drunk. The two security guards arrived and removed the appellant from the shop. They then took the appellant towards the laneway and finally assaulted him while other two guards employed by the same
Premium Law Tort Tort law
by Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax Acts. In October‚ 1919‚ the appellants‚ Mr. Norris‚ Mr. White‚ and Mr. Browning (called for the purposes of the assessments and this appeal the "Cape Brandy Syndicate")‚ appealed against assessments to excess profits duty for the accounting periods March 11‚ 1916 - December 31‚ 1916‚ and January 1‚ 1917 - September 17‚ 1917. The three appellants were members of different firms‚ but the assessments in question were made in respect of profits
Premium Tax Taxation in the United States Tax refund
the information provided I believe the appellant should be sentenced and charged. It is understandable that when one is involved in a case that can lead to time in jail‚ when it is the appellants turn to talk‚ the appellant might say the wrong thing at the wrong time. It is known that at one point the appellant had said‚ he had never driven the green Cadillac that belongs to cristabel pierce. However‚ on page three paragraph nine evidence shows that the appellant was seen driving the green Cadillac
Premium Crime Criminal justice Criminal law