Capa > Artigo retirado da edição > Comentários do leitor > NRI Legal Services London - How to deal with...
NRI Legal Services London - How to deal with property concerning legalities in sale of property without coming to India by LexLords - NRI Legal Services Things To Know Before You Buy
por Elisha Hilson (2018-12-07)
The question was whether this was income received by the Maharaja. It is therefore impossible to hold in this case that there was any cash payment by the purchasers to the respondent-company on the date of the execution of the sale deed and the execution of the mortgage deed on the same date by the purchasers cannot be treated as equivalent to payment of cash. 31 or any other article on fundamental rights should be altered by a-violent revolution and not by peaceful change.
The NRI Legal services contract was to be for an initial term of 15 months and ParkingEye's remuneration was to come from the charges levied over that period. In the circumstances found in the present case it cannot be said that the mere giving of security for the debt by the purchaser was tantamount to payment. ParkingEye's claim for damages was met with a defence which included a plea of illegality based on the intended use of deception in the performance of the contract.
10(2)(xv) as the lands already sold by the firm were not stock-in-trade of the respondent company; NRI Legal and that furthermore, it was likely that the price paid 'by the respondent company under the contract of sale dated July 7, 1948 to the firm for taking over the assets and liabilities of the firm had been fixed after taking into account the obligation for the development of such plots; the expenses incurred NRI in discharge of these obligation must therefore be attributed to the capital structure of the respondent company's business and could not be considered an obligation incurred in connection with the carrying on of its business ; (ii) part of the consideration money not received NRI Lawyers in cash from those who had bought the plots was treated as a loan to the purchaser for 264 which the plot sold was mortgaged in favour of the respondent company and as such should be treated as a constructive receipt liable to be included in the profits of the respondent company derived during the respective accounting years.
Overstayers were to be sent letters of demand in a standard form agreed between the parties in advance of the conclusion of the contract. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Mitra that the amounts of the consideration money not received in cash but which were treated as a loan to -the purchasers and for which the lands sold were mortgaged in favour of the respondent-company, should be treated as constructive receipt of the money by the respondent-company and therefore liable to be included in the profits of the respondentcompany derived during the respective accounting years.
501/-) and a cheque was paid as part of the consideration on January 30, 1. 2,407/5/6 and the balance of the amount "secured under Security Deed of even date". By that time the monitoring system had been installed at 17 of its stores. If, therefore, the petitioners are right in their contention that Art. Six months into the contract Somerfield repudiated it for reasons unconnected with the letters of demand. The third pro forma letter was deceptive because it falsely represented that ParkingEye had the authority and intention to issue proceedings against the customer if payment was not made within a stipulated period.
In the course of his judgment,, Lord Macmillan stated at page 161 of the Report as NRI Lawyers follows: One of the items so taken over consisted of promissory notes executed by the NRI Legal Kumar in favour of the Maharaja. 31 is not amendable within the frame-work of the present Constitution, the only other recourse for making the amendment would, as I have already said, be by revolution and not through, peaceful NRI Legal means, It cannot be reasonably supposed.
that the Constitution-makers contem- plated that Art. In the assessment year in question, the Kumar owed to Maharaja six lakhs of rupees as interest. The system recorded vehicle registration numbers and customers would be charged for staying beyond a set period. The Memo of Consideration in the sale deed reproduced above shows that there was cash payment of the earnest money on August 5, 1948 (Rs. We accordingly hold that, in the circumstances of this case, the amount of consideration not received and which the purchasers agreed to pay in future for which lands were mortgaged in favour of the respondent-company, cannot be considered to be taxable income for the assessment periods in question.
The Court of Appeal supported and followed the approach of the Law Commission in Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 593, [2013] Bus LR 80 and ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2013] QB 840. Maharajadhiraia of Darbhanga(1). In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the Incometax Department that (i) the expenditure incurred in connection with the development of plots previously sold by the firm was not deductible under s. If the first demand did not result in payment, it was to be followed by a series of further demands in stronger terms.
This he did not pay in cash, but entered into an arrangement whereby the assessee took over various items of property in lieu of principal and interest. The view that we have expressed is home out by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar & Orissa v. In the latter case ParkingEye contracted to provide a system of automated monitoring of car parking at Somerfield's supermarkets. In that case, the Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga lent to Kumar Ganesh Singh, about 32 lakhs of rupees.