|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 28 Records
-
1957 (8) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 10/-each are hereby appropriated for allotment of shares to the members of the transferor Company in terms of the scheme of arrangement. The relevant share certificates shall be issued to such members on their surrendering to the transferee Company the share certificates of the shares held by them in the transferor Company. 4. The transferor Company shall be dissolved without winding up on the expiry of three months after the date of this order and in case there is an appeal against this order, one month after the disposal of the said appeal, unless the Appellate Court orders to the contrary. 5. The transferee Company shall be at liberty to apply from time to time for appropriate orders on such incidental, consequential and supplemental matters as it considers necessary for ensuring that the amalgamation shall be fully and effectively carried out. 21. The remunerations due to the chairman and the alternate chairman have been paid. 22. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1957 (8) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the goods ordered to be confiscated was not obtained before the order was commuted to a penalty by the Central Board of Revenue. It cannot be said that the orders have been passed without jurisdiction. 12. in our view, there is a lacuna in the Act inasmuch as the Act does not provide for the realisation by the summary procedure indicated in Section 193 of the amount of a penalty for the first time adjudged by the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 190 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. 13. We hold that it was not open to the Customs Collector to notify the amounts of Bs. 22,918/- and ₹ 16,000/- to any Magistrate for the purpose of realisation and that the First Class Magistrate, Jamnagar, was not entitled to issue any warrants of attachment on the goods of the Company for realising any of the said amounts. We, therefore, set aside and cancel the warrants of attachment issued by the Magistrate and set aside the order of the Magistrate. 14. Order accordingly.
-
1957 (8) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , I cannot see why, even if the expression bears the same meaning in section 28, the legal representative committing a default cannot be treated as having committed it in respect of his income. Even if the meaning of the expression "his income" in the vocabulary of section 28(1) be, as applied to the case of a legal representative, the income of another person assessed in his hands, it is, nevertheless, so far as the legal representative is concerned, his income, because unless it were so, there could not have been any default with respect to the notice served under section 22(2), requiring the legal representative to furnish a return of "your income." We need not, however, try to arrive at that result from the language of the notice under section 22(2), because, in my view, the effect of section 24B(2) is decisive of the question. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question referred must, in my opinion, be in the affirmative. Guha, J.-I agree.
-
1957 (8) TMI 38 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... value unless restored in some way. A right to work the coal in such a manner as to sacrifice the value of the surface was a material asset for the company to possess, and, not unnaturally or unusually, the same principle was applied in the lease to the conferment of that right on the company as in the case of surface occupation by debris heaps and the like. The price of acquiring that right is a capital outlay." In my opinion this principle applies to the present case and it must be held that the amount of ₹ 10,266 paid for the surface land by the assessee company is in the nature of capital expenditure and is not an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. I would accordingly answer the question of law referred by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the Income-tax Department and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the cost of this reference. Hearing fee ₹ 250. RAJ KISHORE PRASAD, J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1957 (8) TMI 37 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act for being in possession of the gun which was recovered at his Instance from behind Gujri Mahal. It is not safe to hold that the gun which was concealed there, was in the possession of Mehtab Singh. I set aside his conviction and sentence under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act and acquit him. 65. In Criminal Revision No. 948 of 1957, Pokhar Singh, was found guilty under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Anns Act and was sentenced to undergo nine month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 200/- was also imposed upon him. This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence imposed upon him under sections 457/380, Indian Penal Code, in Criminal Revision No. 946 of 1957. The recovery of firearms hidden under toori from his nauhra in village Badesra, leaves no room for doubt as to his being in possession of the arms in question. His conviction and sentence under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act are maintained.
-
1957 (8) TMI 36 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es of the business. As Lord Keith observed in the case of Morgan v. Tate & Lyle Ltd. 1954 26 ITR 195, which I have already mentioned, "If the purpose of the expenditure is to benefit the trade, it is not necessary to show by demonstration that in fact the expenditure has produced, or will produce, profit or has prevented loss of profit or has facilitated or will facilitate the earning of profit."The learned Lord, however, added that the expenditure must be laid out for that purpose and with that expectation. It has not been found in this case that it was not with the expectation that the apprehended difficulty would be removed that the expenditure had been incurred. If it was incurred with that expectation, the fact that the calculation made by the Club proved to be a miscalculation, does not in any way alter the nature of the expenditure. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question referred must, in my opinion, be in the negative. Guha, J.-I agree.
-
1957 (8) TMI 35 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quired in. view of the provisions of Rule 75A (3) of the Defence of India Rules, the Bank had no right or title left in the disputed lands which it could transfer to the petitioners of cases 645 and 701 subsequently, and, therefore, by their purchase in 1952 after the title of the Bank had been extinguished by operation of law under Rule 75A (3) of the Defence of India Rules, the purchasers did not acquire any right or title to the disputed land by their purchase, because their vendor had no right or title in it to convey. 43. For the reasons given above, in my judgment, there is no merit in these applications and accordingly they must be dismissed with costs. 44. In the result, the rules are discharged, as no case has been made out in any case for Issuing any writ against the opposite party. Each of the petitioners will, therefore, pay ₹ 100/- as costs to the opposite party. The Government of India through the Aerodrome Officer, Ranchi. V. Ramaswami, C.J. 45. I agree.
-
1957 (8) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any reason". I can see no justification to extend the principle laid down in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. v. M. K. Venkatachalam 5, to the present case which had to be and was dealt with under section 35 of the Act. In my opinion, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 35 of the Act and to treat the amount in question as part of the total agricultural income of 1954-55, that had escaped assessment on 21st March, 1956, in the year of assessment 1955-56. The question that I reserved for, consideration last was whether the rule nisi in these cases should be discharged on the ground, that the petitioner had availed himself of the statutory right of appeal in both the cases. Since the petitions fail even otherwise, it may not be necessary to rest my decision on this feature of the case. The rule nisi is discharged in each of the cases and the petitions will stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1957 (8) TMI 33 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that no interest at all would be paid. It is of course a matter of discretion with the Commissioner of Income-tax to determine what should be the rate of interest. It is also clear that the discretion of the Commissioner to fix the rate of interest should be exercised reasonably in the background and circumstances of each particular case. To put it in other words, the discretion vested in the Commissioner of Income-tax must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with law. For these reasons we hold that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated the 8th October, 1955, refusing to pay interest to the petitioners is illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari. We further direct that the Commissioner of Income-tax should reconsider the question of interest and decide the matter in accordance with law. We accordingly allow this application, but there will be no order as to costs of the hearing of this application. Petition allowed.
-
1957 (8) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m the point of view of a reserve, the sum of ₹ 13,54,054 was really included in the larger sum of ₹ 36,67,481 and that the smaller sum was not intended for an application with which the larger sum had no concern. As however at the beginning of the chargeable accounting period the two funds were still standing separate, I would not like to rest my decision on the ground I have just stated, but I think it would be right to point out what as a matter of accounting and as a matter of the final adjustment of the company's affairs, the true position was. But, as I have said, I would rest my answer to the question asked on the general grounds which I have previously given. On those grounds I hold that the answer to the question referred must be in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, will get the costs of this reference as also the costs reserved by the order of the 19th of August, 1954. GUHA, J.--agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1957 (8) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stified in holding that books of account were suppressed where the Income-tax Officer has so held and has made a best judgment assessment. This right is unlike another right of appeal which is given to an applicant under section 27 who unsuccessfully raised any of the matters detailed therein. That is a question which does not arise in the present case, and in our opinion an application under section 27 of the Act was not a condition precedent to the raising of the present contention. In our opinion, therefore, the answer to the first part of the question of law posed is in the affirmative. In view of our answer, it was incumbent on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide whether the contention of the assessee that books of account did not exist was well founded or not. The second part of the question does not call for an answer. 9. The reference is therefore answered as above with costs on the Department. Counsel's fee ₹ 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1957 (8) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tead observes in his Law of Agency, 6th Edn. at page 201 "Where the remuneration of an agent is payable upon the performance by him of a definite undertaking, be is entitled to be paid that remuneration as he has substantially done what he undertook to do, even if the principal secures no benefit from his services." The plaintiff could not be deprived of his remuneration simply because for some reason over which he had no control and for which he or the purchaser procured by him were not responsible the sale could not be effected. 19. The case of (1945) 1 All ER 194 (A) can be of no help to the appellant as the case in band belongs to a class different from the class in which that case fell. 20. The suit of the plaintiff thus appears to have been rightly decreed. The learned counsel for the appellant has not succeeded in persuading us to take a view different from that taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal must therefore fail and it is dismissed with costs.
-
1957 (8) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6 and not whether it was the income for 1944-45; and, in any event, as we have pointed out already he did not in fact determine that it was the income for 1944-45. He only stated that, if at all, it would be the income for 1944-45. It is pertinent also to note that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in his judgment, states that the Income Tax Officer was in possession of no facts to connect the sum of ₹ 53,500 with the speculation business which admittedly the assessee conducted. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not concerning himself with whether this was income for the year 1944-45 at all, and, in our opinion, the notice cannot be said to have been in consequences of or to give effect to any finding or direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 4. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in the conclusion that he arrived at. We confirm the order of the learned trial Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs. 5. Appeal dismissed.
-
1957 (8) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... usly to consider the whole fund available for distribution and not merely a portion of that fund contributed by a particular source. In my view, having regard to the scheme of section 23A(1) and the relation which the size of the profit at the disposal of the company bears to the question which the Income-tax Officer is to decide, there can be no doubt that the profit contemplated is not limited to profit from business or profit from any particular source at all, but it comprises the whole of the profits of the company distributable as dividend. I can see no answer to this construction of the phrase and Mr. Mitra at the end very fairly conceded that he was unable to find any reason for disagreeing. For the reasons given above, the answer to the first part of the question referred must be in the negative and the second part in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, will have the costs of this reference. GUHA, J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1957 (8) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... led to apply the correct principles and came to an erroneous decision on a view of the law which, in my opinion, was clearly wrong. The principles which I have tried to explain will apply to both the memoranda, because by the 14th December both had been brought to order. What the actual decision would be, if the proper principles were applied, it is not for us to say and we can only hold that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to admit the appeal on the foot of the two memoranda of appeal filed before them or either of them on the grounds given in the appellate order and particularly in the view that the defects were material defects which affected their jurisdiction to entertain the memoranda. The proper principles are those which I have endeavoured to explain. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question referred to the court must be in the negative. The assessee will have the costs of this reference. GUHA, J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1957 (8) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ich he received and that was the income on which he was liable to be assessed on the clear words of section 7 of the Act read with rule 4(2)(a). In my view, the view taken by the Tribunal is entirely unsustainable. Apart from what they have said about a free market and a regulated market, it appears to me that they misled themselves by applying the conditions of 1359 B.S., to 1358 B.S. in forgetfulness, it would appear, of the fact that it was the value of the paddy to the assessee as in 1358 B.S. that was to be determined. The department itself appears to have had no clear notion of the true position, because even before us, the only argument was that the average of the open market price and the procurement price ought to have been taken. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question must, in my opinion, be in negative. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal, will have costs of this reference. GUHA, J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1957 (8) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 4(2), it is clear that no question of a priority as between the setting off of the depreciation allowance for the current year and the carried over loss of earlier years can ever arise. The facts of the present case, therefore, do not belong to the stage where effect is to be given to the priority. They belong to an earlier stage where the depreciation allowance has not yet got on to the same level as the carried forward loss and therefore there is no "depreciation allowance also to be carried forward", as contemplated by section 24(2)(b). The assessee's contention that the carried forward loss of ₹ 27,359 ought first to have been set off against the current year's profit of ₹ 9,56,467, was, therefore, rightly negatived. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question referred is in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, will have the costs of this reference. GUHA, J.--I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1957 (8) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to enter into that agreement, he would not be able to become a partner of the Benares Steel Rolling Mills at all and that he had to concede shares of the income which he might earn from the Benares Steel Rolling Mills to his partners of Radhakissen Santhalia as the price of his being put in a position to enter the firm of the Benares Steel Rolling Mills and earn a partnership income therefrom. It seems to me, if I may say so, that the argument that the shares payable to the other partners of Radhakissen Santhalia should be treated as expenditure incurred by Mahaliram Santhalia for the purpose of earning his share of the one-fourth share of the income received from the Benares Steel Rolling Mills, is little short of fantastic. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question referred must, in my opinion, be in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta, will have costs of this reference. GUHA, J.--I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1957 (8) TMI 23 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n assessing authority not in exercise of the power conferred under section 2-B but under section 2(a-2) of the Act. Section 2(a-2), though it defines assessing authority, by necessary implication empowers the State Government to authorise any person to make an assessment under the Act. The Government certainly can authorise the Deputy Commissioner to make appointments to man his office and to help him in carrying out the administrative functions entrusted to him. Section 2(a-2) does not qualify the word person as one directly appointed by the Government. It takes in any person authorised by the Government to make an assessment. Therefore the person appointed by the Deputy Commissioner had been legally authorised by Government by issuing the necessary notification in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 2(a-2) to make the assessment. We do not see any merits in this contention. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1957 (8) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce on the 29th December when he submitted the bijak to the principal at Jabalpur. The pucca adatiya being outside the State and the goods being also at the relevant period at Khadakpore, Explanation (II) to section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act would not be made applicable. 5.. We accordingly hold that the answer to the question posed by the President, Board of Revenue, is that under the facts and circumstances of the case the despatches of oilseeds of the value of Rs. 2,64,366 made by the applicant to places outside the Province during the assessment period 13th November, 1947, to 31st October, 1948, did not constitute sales taxable under the Sales Tax Act. We may add that we had the facts only of the one transaction before us, and what we say applies to such facts as are disclosed, and not to any other transaction in which there may be distinguishing features. The costs of this reference shall be borne by the non-applicant. Counsel s fee Rs. 50. Reference answered accordingly.
|
