|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 51 Records
-
1955 (9) TMI 64 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judicate is not applicable to income-tax cases. Each year is a separate unit that falls for scrutiny. The finding that the debt in question did not become a bad debt relates to the accounting period under consideration only. 21. As already observed by us, there is no evidence in the case that the debt had become barred during the year in question. In our opinion, therefore, no question of law arises on this point also. 22. In the view we have taken of the case it is not necessary for us to decide whether in dealing with an application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act it is open to this Court to ask the Tribunal to state the case in respect of grounds other than those canvassed by the assessee before the Tribunal. Opinion on this question is divided. In the facts and circumstances of his case it is not necessary to go into this question. 23. For reasons stated above, this application is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 75. Application dismissed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nities at all because he could not carry on any trade. Lord Black burn in his judgment at page 76 makes it clear that on the facts of the case he could reach no other conclusion than that the money was paid to reimburse the assessees for the trading profits which they would have earned had the vessel been timeously delivered. One can understand if the assessee had given the licence to someone else. The licence would have been in existence and for some reason he was prevented from earning the profits on that licence. But when the licence itself is not in existence the money could not paid to reimburse the assessee for trading profits which he could have earned. Having heard the Advocate-General we do not think that the case he relies on in any way militates against the principle laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Shamsher Printing Press, (1953) 23 ITR 363. The result is that we must answer the question referred to us in the negative. The Commissioner to pay the costs.
-
1955 (9) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alisation may depend on the contingency that the making up of the accounts would show income, profits or gains." Therefore, the Advocate-General would be right that the mere fact that computation could not be made on 22-8-1950 and it could be made only later will not necessarily militate against the position that Arvind had acquired the right to receive the amount on 22-8-1950. But if he had no right to receive the amount at all the mere computation will not create a right which did not exist. 10. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was in error when it took the view that the sum of ₹ 2,49,459 represented profits of the partnership to which Arvind as a minor was entitled. If the Tribunal was in error in taking that view, then clearly this amount could not be included in the assessee's total income of Samvat Year 2006. 11. We must therefore answer the question submitted to us in the negative. Commissioner to pay the costs. 12. Question answered in negative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pay any tax, whereas the passengers going to Hardwar by means of motor vehicles nave to pay toll tax. The toll tax, as I have already pointed out, is imposed on vehicles coming within the municipal limits as the Municipal roads are used by such vehicles. It is not a tax on passengers. The measure of the tax is no doubt the number of passengers carried by the vehicles but the tax has to be paid by the owners of the vehicles. The train does not enter the Municipal limits and does not use the Municipal roads and as such no tax can be imposed on the passengers travelling by train, and the impugned notification is not hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. I, therefore, allow this petition in part and issue direction, to the respondent 1 not to levy toll tax on the vehicles of the applicants on their leaving the limits of the Hardwar Union Municipality. The stay order is discharged. 11. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1955 (9) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der the proviso to section 99 before recording a finding under section 99 (1) (a) (ii). Further, even if we agree with the contention of the appellant that notice under the proviso should be given to a party to the petition, seeing that the reliefs which could be claimed in the election petition under section 84 are those mentioned in section 98, and that action under section 99 (1) (a) is to be taken at the time when the order under section 98 is pronounced, there is no insuperable difficulty in treating the notice to the party in the election petition as notice for purposes of the proviso to section 99(1) (a) as well. This reasoning will not apply to persons who are not parties to the petition, and a notice to them will, be necessary under the proviso, before they axe named. In the result, all the contentions urged in support of the appeal fail, which must accordingly be rejected. As the respondent has not appeared to contest the appeal, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1955 (9) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd to the income of the annuitant. The annuity that he receives stands on the same footing as the dividend received by a shareholder, and we are not permitting the Income-tax authorities to tax Sir Joseph Kay with the help of some legal fiction introduced into out Income-tax Act for the purpose of dealing with shareholders who have received dividends from companies here. We are upholding the action of the Income- tax Act authorities in taxing Sir Joseph Kay on the simple finding that in substance and in fact the income of Sir Joseph Kay is £500, that it accrued to him outside the taxable territories and that as he is a resident he is liable to pay tax on that amount. The question therefore referred to us must be answered as follows "The sum of £500 fell to be included in the assessee's total income for the year ending 31st March, 1952, for the purpose of assessment for the year 1952-53." The assessee to pay the costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (9) TMI 58 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 37,000. In other words, the parts replaced in place of those worn out cost approximately seven or eight per cent. of the entire machinery in the first two items and about eleven per cent. in the third item. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has also said that there was no case of renewal of the entire machinery and the replacement of the worn out parts did not bring any new value to the machinery or change its identity. In view of the interpretation I have placed upon section 10(2)(v) of the Income-tax Act, I am clearly of opinion that the expenditure of ₹ 17,256 on machinery repairs should be deducted in computing the assessable profits of the assessee in the circumstances of this case. I would accordingly answer the question referred to the High Court against the Income-tax Department and in favour of the assessee. The Income-tax Department must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee ₹ 250. IMAM, J.--I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded as lending assurance to the confession recorded in Exhibit P-15. On the contrary, the difference between the two is such as to throw considerable doubt on both. While according to Exhibits P-5 and P-6 the appellant was the prime offender, according to Exhibit P-15 Bagh Ali, the fourth accused, was the moving spirit and it was he that actively intervened and spurred him on to commit the crime while he was wavering. Both these statements cannot be true, and if either of them must be untrue, the question arises as to how and why the untruth in the one or the other was brought about. In this situation, we should be reluctant to hold that Exhibits P-5 and P-6 lend any assurance to the truth of the confession in Exhibit P-15. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no reliable evidence on which the appellant could be convicted. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside, and it is directed that he be set at liberty.
-
1955 (9) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... agricultural income," as adapted, to be taken as valid and he pressed for a certain construction of it. Now he was trying to say that the adaptation must be ignored altogether, because it had been enacted without jurisdiction. We do not think that it is possible for us to entertain the attack on the validity of the adaptation which had not even been hinted at, at any stage of the proceedings. For the reasons given above, the answers to the questions referred must, in our opinion, be as follows - Assessment year 1948-49 (Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1954) Question (1)-"Not pressed." Question (2) as amended-"No." Assessment year 1949-50 (Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1953) The sole question "Not pressed". The Commissioner of Income-tax will have his costs from the assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 54 of 1954, but there will be no order for costs in Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1953. LAHIRI, J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (9) TMI 55 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 47 all that remains due and payable is only a sum of about ₹ 16,624. It is said that a sum of ₹ 60,220 was paid in the course of the period from April, 1954, up-to-date. It has also paid a tax of ₹ 53,685 from 1st January, 1954 till now. It is stated, that on account of these payments, all its available liquid assets have been practically used up and that it is not in a position to pay the balance, on account also of the present market conditions. It offers, however, to furnish security for the balance payable. We cannot hold that mere inability to pay on the part of the assessee could be a good ground for our directing stay of collection of the tax. The circumstances are not so compelling as to call for our interference. This case does not seem to us at all to stand on a footing substantially different from that of a number of other cases where references have been made and are pending. In the result, we dismiss the petition with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1955 (9) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e 28th December, 1950, then the right of the managing agents would have been to receive the 3?% under the agreement, but by reason of this variation of the agreement which was arrived at in the year of account the right which the managing agents had was not to receive 3?% but such amount as the directors might determine after considering the working of the managed company. Therefore, in our opinion, no question here arises as to any deduction to which the assessee company is entitled. The reference is capable of being decided on the narrow question that the income of the assessee company was not ₹ 2,05,575-3-0 but only ₹ 1,05,575-3-0. If that was the income of the assessee company, that income alone can be brought to tax and not any hypothetical income which they might have earned if the old agreement might have continued to subsist. The answer to the question therefore is in the negative. Commissioner to pay the costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... indirectly attempts to satisfy us that on all the materials which were before the two Tribunals the decision of the first Tribunal was correct and the decision of the later Tribunal was not correct. We are not concerned with the merits of the decision of the second Tribunal, nor do we wish to adjudicate between the competing claims of the first Tribunal and the second Tribunal as to the correctness of their respective decisions. It may be that the first Tribunal was right in its decision and the second Tribunal was wrong, but all that we have to consider on this reference is whether in law the second Tribunal had the power and authority to re-open the decision given by the first Tribunal. If the second Tribunal had that power, then as to whether the power was properly exercised or not or whether its decision was correct and valid is a question that does not arise on this reference. The notice of motion is therefore dismissed with costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... company which has no profits to distribute by way of dividend at all in the preceding year and yet declares a dividend. But although there may be no logical reason for this distinction, the function of this Court is to interpret the statute as it stands. It may be a case where the Legislature has not succeeded in giving effect to its intentions and in any event it appears to me that if the Legislature intended that in the case of a company which has no total income which attracts tax a tax should be levied within the framework of the Income-tax Act as it exists, such an object could only be achieved by providing that the company shall be deemed to have a total income and proceeding to tax such total income. I find nothing in the provisions of the Indian Finance Act which can possibly be construed to have that result. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the answer to the questions should be as indicated by my Lord the Chief Justice. Question No. 1 answered in the negative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 51 - VINDHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 63 a sum of Rs. 151-9-0 was assessed in respect of other sales and a sum of Rs. 1,198-4-0 in respect of contract business. I declare the assessment of Rs. 1,198-4-0 on the contract business to be illegal. A sum of Rs. 315-12-3 is still outstanding against the petitioner. I direct that this sum shall not be recovered from him on the basis of the assessment order dated 3rd September, 1952. In writ petitions Nos. 64 and 65 the assessments related to contract business alone. I declare them to be illegal and direct that the balance outstanding against the petitioners on the basis of the assessment orders dated 27th March, 1955, and 24th April, 1955, respectively should not be recovered. It would be open to the State to revise the assessments of the petitioners and levy tax on the price of materials used in the execution of the works and recover it. The petitions are accordingly allowed in part as indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions allowed in part.
-
1955 (9) TMI 50 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be the case if the weaver put the goods at his counter and remained present for displaying the goods on his own behalf to the prospective buyers. Question 4 The answer to the first part is No and the answer to the second part is Yes . We agree substantially with the reasons given by the Board of Revenue and hold that the assessee acts as a broker throughout the transaction, and not as a dealer selling goods either for himself or as agent of the weavers. Question 5 This question involves consideration whether a broker is included within the definition of a dealer and if it is, whether the definition is ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. This question need not be answered since the definition of a dealer does not include a broker. Question 6 This question also does not need any answer in view of our opinion on questions (1) to (4). 13.. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Board of Revenue. 14.. There shall be no order about costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (9) TMI 49 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which prohibits double taxation in the same series of transactions. This is purely a question of fact, and it has been found unanimously by the Sales Tax Officer, the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue that there was no evidence at all to prove payment of the tax by the collieries. When there are no sufficient materials on the record to establish the payment of the tax by the collieries, there is no question at all of double taxation, and the argument of the learned advocate must be overruled. In these circumstances, I would answer the question referred to the Court as follows The assessee is not a dealer within the meaning of section 2(C) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, and the transactions in question do not constitute sales within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act, and, therefore, the petitioners are not liable to be taxed on these trans- actions. The petitioners will be entitled to costs hearing fee Rs. 200. DAS, C. J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (9) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ressly mentioned as item 40, and it is therefore urged that when the Legislature wanted to exempt sugar-cane it expressly did so. But there are innumerable instances where the Legislature for greater caution or greater clarity refers to an article which is already covered by the wider category mentioned in the earlier part of the section, and therefore we are not at all satisfied that the Legislature in mentioning sugar-cane in item 40 in Schedule A to the Amending Act necessarily referred to an item which did not already fall in item 24 which is the item of fresh vegetables and edible tubers. In any view of the case, the matter is not free from doubt or ambiguity, and if that is the position, the doubt or ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the subject and not in favour of the State. The result is that the reference fails and must be dismissed. No order as to costs. Our answers to all the three questions will be in the affirmative. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1955 (9) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and an offence mentioned in that section cannot be tried by a Court unless a complaint is filed by the Court before which the document has been produced. The conviction of the accused under section 465 read with section 471 of the Indian Penal Code must, therefore, be set aside as the learned trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try that offence. The fine paid by the accused for that offence must be remitted. But the con- viction of the accused under section 36(g) of the Sales Tax Act of 1953 must be upheld. In lieu of the sentence of fine passed upon the accused, the sentence of one month s simple imprisonment is imposed upon him. I accordingly direct that the sentence of fine passed upon the accused for the offence under section 36(g) of the Sales Tax Act, 1953, be re- mitted and in lieu thereof the accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Warrant to issue for the arrest of the accused. Ordered accordingly.
-
1955 (9) TMI 46 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Constitution (3) That he is not liable to be taxed in respect of transactions affected by the second proviso to section 2(g) of the Act, but that his liability in respect of transactions governed by the definition of sale is not affected by the Adaptation of Laws Order made by the President and (4) That the levy of court-fees by the Taxing Officer at different stages of the assessment proceedings is ultra vires. 22.. In the result the assessment order is set aside. The petitioner shall be directed to furnish a return of his transactions under section 11, for the period for which he has been served with a notice under section 11(1). The assessment order already passed and the demand for recovery of the tax as well as of the penalty should be withdrawn. The court-fees paid by the petitioner at the different stages of the assessment proceedings should be refunded to the petitioner. In the circumstances we make no order as to costs. RAO, J.-I agree. Assessment order set aside.
-
1955 (9) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee should pay Rs. 200 out of the tax held due by him before he could admit the revision application, and, therefore, when no such payment was made, his dis- missal of the application must be held to be correct. 2.. We have been referred in this connection to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shah Khimji Shamji v. The State of Bombay(1). That was, however, a case of a revision where the order sought to be revised had not been passed in appeal. To this case, therefore, rule 48 does not apply, and the decision in that case, therefore, cannot be regarded as a guide in deciding on the facts of the present case. Similarly, our decision in Revision Application No. 96 of 1954 given on the 1st February, 1955, also concerns the case of a revision application against an order passed in revision and not in appeal by the Additional Collector of Sales Tax. 3.. In the result this application is dismissed. Application dismissed. (1) 1951 2 Bom. S.T.T.S.D. 40 2 S.T.C. 158.
|
