Freesexchat pay pay dating maidenhead uk

06-Jan-2017 19:10

In this case, a separate corporate entity was brought into existence outside the taxable territory with the ulterior motive of evading the tax obligation by the assessee mills.The Supreme Court observed: "It is true that from the juristic point of view, the company is a legal personality entirely distinct from its members and the company is capable of enjoying rights and being subjected to duties which are not the same as those enjoyed or borne by its members.Once a company or corporation is formed, the business which is carried on by the such company or corporation is the business of that company or corporation and is not the business of the citizens who get the company or corporation incorporated and the rights of the incorporated body must be judges on that footing and cannot be judged on the assumption that they are the rights attributed to the business of individual citizens.The court held that the income-tax authorities were entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and to look at the reality of the transaction to examine whether the corporate entity was being used for tax evasion.

The court held that while a human person can represent him or herself in court, a legal person such as a company can only be represented by a solicitor or barrister.

Macaura's case is depending upon the fact that Company whether private or public is distinct from his owner if he took the policy from insurance company at the name of company then he could claim for damages. Only Macaura’s company, as owner of the timber, which had the requisite insurable interest in it.

Only the company, and not Macaura, could insure its property against loss or damage.

The result was that Mr Salomon was entitled to be repaid the debt as the first secured creditor.

In this case, Mr Salomon was the major shareholder, a director, an employee and a creditor of the company he created.

He had not transferred the insurance policy to the company. After the sale, Macaura continued to insure the plantation in his own name. When Macaura attempted to claim on the policy, the company refused to pay.