Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1963 1963 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 49 of 49 Records

• 1963 (2) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on will be available to a registered manufacturer even in those cases where only one and not both the taxes can be realised from him under the provisions of the Act. Our attention was not drawn to any case which has laid down that having regard to the terms of the relevant Turnover and Assessment Rules, the department was under a duty to tax particular sales, so that the assessee could put forward a claim for deduction. On the other hand, the language of the rules and the rulings cited to us establish the position that there would be no occasion to claim a rebate when the transactions are not subjected to tax. In the light of the decided cases and the language of the relevant rules, we are inclined to the view that the petitioner has no such right as claimed by him. That being so, the order under revision cannot successfully be impugned. In the result, the tax revision case fails and is dismissed with oosts. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 (one hundred and fifty). Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 34 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s, however, in the context of interpreting rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, in which no distinction was made in the rules themselves between groundnut oil and hydrogenated groundnut oil and it was held that the essential commodity was the same. In the present context, however, the Legislature has made a distinction between the two, since both of them appear in the same Schedule and it cannot be said that the differentiation is illusory, for, it is only after groundnut oil undergoes a certain process or processes that it becomes vanaspathi. It cannot be suggested that the Legislature cannot tax at different rates or in different ways, e.g., in regard to incidence or exemption, commodities which can be reasonably differentiated. The fact that groundnut oil is liable to taxation at a single point makes no difference to the above position. We do not, therefore, see any reason to admit this petition. It is rejected. Petition rejected.

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Burden Of Proof, Business Income, Cash Credits, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Original Assessment

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 32 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Order of the High Court of Bombay allowing the State appeal and convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, for having contravened the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, hereinafter called the Order, and sentencing him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 2,000/- challenged

  Held that:- The provision in clause 5 of the Order empowering the licensing authority to attach a condition to the effect that the goods covered by the licence shall not be disposed of except in the manner prescribed by the licensing authority is a valid provision which comes within the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act on the Central Government.We do not consider that the sentence is severe in the circumstances of the case which indicate that from the very beginning the appellant, as Chairman of the Association, knew that the Association would not be able to utilise all the yarn to be imported under the licence applied for. The fact that Warden & Co., did pay over ₹ 5,000/- to the Association indicates that the goods did fetch a price higher than the price paid for their importation. The case appears to be a deliberate case of securing import licence with a view to mis-apply the goods imported. Appeal Dismissed

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
  

  Winding up - Preferential payments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... same in its proper nature is not land revenue at all. The effect of the section is that the procedure for recovery of land revenue prescribed under the Land Revenue Code is made available to the Government for the purpose of recovering any amount due to it in respect of any aid given by it under the Act to an industry. It cannot be read as converting the aid itself into land revenue. I hold, therefore, that the guarantee commission recoverable by the Government is not land revenue or a tax due to the Government entitled to preferential payment under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 530 of the Companies Act. In the result, in partial reversal of the order of the liquidator, I admit the claim of the applicant mdash the Government mdash to the extent of Rs. 17,048.25 nP. as an ordinary unsecured debt ranking for payment pro rata along with other unsecured debts. The claim in excess of the said amount is rejected. The parties will bear their own costs in this application.

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent, directors, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t to sue had accrued even at the time of the commission of the act of misfeasance and any shareholder or creditor of the company could have filed a suit immediately thereafter and that all that the summary remedy provided under section 235 was only for the same reliefs which would previously have been enforced by a suit and was not for a new relief. On the other hand, the contention of the official liquidator was that article 120 applied and the right to sue accrued to the official liquidator only on the date of the order of winding up. The learned judge rejected the contention of the official liquidator and accepted the argument of the counsel for the directors. In our opinion, this decision is not relevant at all on the question we are considering in view of the legislative change effected in 1936. In the result, the appeals, O.S.A. Nos. 2 of 1961 and 22 of 1962 are dismissed with costs. Advocate rsquo s fee one set. Appeal O.S.A. No. 4 of 1961 is allowed but without costs.

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was in active management as the managing director of the bank. That scruples were not amongst his virtues is plain from the fact that he who engineered the mortgage transaction decried the same with in a law months thereafter in his report to the directors. He should be made liable to the entire extent. But for his help the first respondent could not have avoided his liability or been permitted to realise the unpaid purchase money from the Mannadiar Saw and Oil Mills Ltd., which he had no hopes of realising. He should be made liable for the entire amount decreed against the first respondent. The fifth respondent ceased to be a director from 8th October, 1948. No liability will attach to him under this head. We, therefore, pass a decree against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 on the terms prayed for. Respondent No. 2 will be liable to pay Rs. 5,000 only. The official liquidator will be entitled to recover his costs from respondents Nos. 1 and 4 here, and before the learned judge.

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Winding up - Payment of debts due by contributory and extent of set off

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he respondent and held in its order dated 23rd March, 1962, that the respondent was liable to pay the amounts specified therein, the cause of action to recover the amount should be deemed to have arisen only as on the date of that order. I am not impressed by this contention. That order merely determined in consequence of rejecting the respondent s explanation that he was liable to make good to the company the specified sums. It does not follow from that that the liability of the respondent was incurred as on the date of that order. The liability of the respondent was incurred on the date or dates when the debits by the French concern were made against the company, but the amounts covered by these debits went to the benefit not of the company but of the respondent. That being the case, the liability arose far beyond the period of six years, of the instant application. It follows therefore that the application is barred by time. The application is dismissed, but with no costs.

  ---

• 1963 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Validity of the retrospective operation of the Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961 questioned

  Held that:- Part XIII contains provisions which constitute a self-contained code and we need not really travel outside the said provisions in determining the validity of the tax imposed by the Act. Since we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the validity of the retrospective operation of the Act cannot be sustained, we do not think it necessary to pursue this matter any further. Appeal fails.

  ---

123