|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 27 Records
-
1964 (6) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... im through the default of the first defendant. But in appeal when it was complained to the learned Judges that the learned Subordinate Judge refused to exercise the provisions of S. 15, the learned Judge rejected this contention and agreed with the reasoning given by the trial Judge that it should be an unconditional request by the plaintiff without claiming any damages or compensation or any other relief. But on the other hand, the plaintiff represented to the trial Judge that he would file an appeal against the suit. (9) In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to relinquish his claim to compensation at the stage of first appeal. We agree with Ramakrishnan J. that only S. 15 of the Specific Relief Act would apply to the facts of this case. The learned Judge was therefore right in modifying the decree in the terms he did. (10) The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing advantage in the case of a company with a small and limited turnover would probably be an insignificant matter in the case of a company with a "word-wide or nation-wide trade." That, again, with great respect, seems to me to be an irrelevant considerations whether it is a capital asset or not depends not upon its size in relation to the size of the total business done by the company. The commissioners then go on to say "It was therefore a question of degree...." I think they are here misdirecting themselves. The question was not a question if degree. It was a question of principle what was the nature of the asset acquired ? This did not depend upon the seize nor upon whether it was acquired in order to increase or maintain trade. I agree that the payments made were payments of a capital nature and the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal to House of Lords refused. Solicitors J. G. Senior; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.
-
1964 (6) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ivision Bench of this court has taken the contrary view in Laxminarayan R. Rathi v. Income-tax Officer, Poona 1964 52 ITR 254 . Mr. Nariman conceded that, in view of this decision, it is not open to him to contend before me that the respondent was incompetent to issue notices under section 34(1)(a) for the reason that the petitioner's case was covered by section 34(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. As the case of the petitioner has now been transferred to a different Income-tax Officer, Mr. Nariman applied at this stage for the amendment of the petition so as to add as second respondent the Income-tax Officer to whom the petitioner's case has been transferred. Some consequential amendments are also prayed for. Mr. G.N. Joshi has no objection to the amendments being granted. Amendments allowed. In the result, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and ( b). The respondent to pay the petitioner's costs quantified at ₹ 500.
-
1964 (6) TMI 58 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd constituted what were accumulated profits at the date of liquidation was exhausted by the previous distributions and whether the distribution of ₹ 75,000 reflected any part of such fund. The Tribunal did not disintegrate the distribution of ₹ 75,000 for the purpose of finding out whether any part of it came out of accumulated profits of earlier years and thus there is no finding of the Tribunal that when the distribution of ₹ 75,000 was made, accumulated profits of earlier years had not been exhausted by the previous distributions and that they reached the hands of the shareholders as part of this distribution, so that the present distribution could be said to be referable to accumulated profits. In the absence of such a finding, the distribution of ₹ 75,000 could not have been regarded as dividend under section 2(6A)(c). I would, therefore, answer the question in the negative. The assessee must get the costs of the reference from the Commissioner.
-
1964 (6) TMI 57 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion accepted as correct for a number of years should not, except for compelling reasons, be departed from. There are no such grounds here. Incidentally we may mention that after the decision in Sreenivasalu Naidu's case 1948 16 I.T.R. 341 was rendered in the year 1948, the income-tax law has undergone several changes. But the provision with which we are concerned in these petitions has remained intact. Therefore, we must assume that Parliament has accepted the interpretation given in Sreenivasalu Naidu's case 1948 16 I.T.R. 341 as correct. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the Commissioner, on an erroneous view of the law, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under clause (2) of section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. We accordingly allow these petitions, set aside the order impugned and direct the Commissioner to deal with the petitioner's applications under section 33A(2) in accordance with law. No costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 56 - HOUSE OF LORDS
... ...
... ... ..... ower in a court of law to restrain the revenue from exacting more than so much of a tax, ex hypothesi granted, as the court may think that in equity a taxpayer ought to pay. A fortiori, without statutory authority, there is no power in the court to compel the revenue to give up part of a tax that has been lawfully collected. With great respect, I do not think that there is any such equity. In my opinion, the fact that it has to be presumed in order to make a suggested interpretation of the Acts even a tolerable one shows that the interpretation itself is mistaken. For these reasons I am of opinion that the respondent's income during the relevant period was investment income and that it received a lawful surtax direction on this footing. I would allow the appeal. LORD HODSON. My Lords, I agree. LORD GUEST. My Lords I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, with which I concur. LORD UPJOHN. My Lords, I agree. Appeal allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection 9(1)(i) will apply. Lastly, there is no legal bar to the jurisdiction of this court taking into consideration the applicability of section 9(1)(i) in this reference as the main contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that no amount should be added to the rent payable by M/s. Birla Brothers Ltd. to arrive at the bona fide annual value. Thus we answer the question in the negative and say that on the facts of the case the bona fide annual value and the taxable income as computed by the Tribunal in respect of the property at No. 8, India Exchange Place, for the assessment years 1951-52, 1953-54 and 1956-57 should not be in accordance with the provisions of section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act and that section 9(1)(i) should be made applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the fact that contentions of both the parties are partially accepted, we direct that each party will bear and pay its own costs. MITRA J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1964 (6) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uot; To my mind, a similar intention has been expressed by the legislature in section 23A(1) at the time of amending it by the Finance Act of 1955. In the premises while applying section 23A to the facts herein, the tax authorities should have given credit for the dividends actually distributed subsequent to the statutory period. But, as I have said, this point does not call for a decision by us having regard to the conclusions we have reached on the question of advances made by the company to its shareholders. I have not in this judgment referred to the arguments of learned counsel for the Commissioner. Mr. Gupta, appearing for the Commissioner, did not concede any of the points decided by us; but no substantial reasons were advanced by him in support of the Tribunal's order. The answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the negative. The respondent will pay to the applicant the costs of this reference. MASUD J.- I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1964 (6) TMI 53 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... reason to suspect, the serious discrepancy appearing from the recorded reasons and paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition leads us to believe that prior to seizure there was actually no reason to suspect that the dealer was attempting to evade payment of tax. What we find from the facts and circumstances of this case is that the Commercial Tax Officer did not act according to law and rather he exercised his powers perfunctorily. The seizure must be declared to be invalid and the documents and records seized should be directed to be returned forthwith. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The seizure of books of account and documents made on March 23, 1994 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to return forthwith the books of account and records seized under the impugned seizure receipt dated March 23, 1994 to the applicant, in any case, not beyond seven days from this date. The main application is thus disposed of. No order is made for costs. Application allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 52 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... even four pieces, does not amount to cleaning, grading or sorting and does not take away the agricultural produce from the ambit of the proviso. The test is whether the form or the character of the produce is altered by the physical or chemical or other process while preparing it for consumption. It is only when the produce loses its original character, then the further question arises whether the physical process is only that of cleaning, grading or sorting. In the absence of any alteration in its original form or character, the fact that the process, which the produce undergoes does not amount to cleaning, grading or sorting, would not make any difference. On the facts of this case, we cannot but reach the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the exemption envisaged in the proviso to section 2(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. In the result, this tax revision case is allowed. The parties will bear their own costs throughout. Petition allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... principals and should be accounted for by them. Indisputably, the agents have accounted to the principals for the price of the articles. If that were so, sub-clause (iii) of the explanation does not come into operation. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that we could ultimately reach is that the first sale was effected by the respondents in these cases, there being no prior sale and have thus become liable to pay the sales tax which they have already collected from the purchasers, admittedly, for the purposes of paying it to the Government. In these circumstances, we disagree with the view taken by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and uphold the order of the assessing authority as affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on appeal. We find no justification to concede the request of the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter should be remanded. In the result, these Tax Revision Cases are allowed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 50 in each. Petitions allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ern with reference to the assessees accounts and a major portion of the transactions. There was therefore no basis at all for drawing an adverse inference from the circumstance of the non-availability of the contracts. It led to a finding which cannot be legally supported. We therefore allow the revision and set aside the assessment on the turnover now in dispute. There was a final argument by learned counsel for the petitioners thet in the event of their being found liable for assessment, the Tribunal should have granted them a penalty licence. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader a penalty licence requires an application by the assessees which is absent in this case. However, this question does not arise in view of our decision given above allowing the revision. The revision is allowed in respect of the turnover of Rs. 39,000 and odd which alone is disputed before us. The revision fails in other respects. There will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
1964 (6) TMI 49 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a Match Works v. The State of Kerala 1962 13 S.T.C. 904. bears on the point under consideration. That being so, we have not examined the correctness of that decision. In deciding these cases, we have not gone into the question as to whether an assessing authority should or should not give reasonable time to an assessee to produce the C Forms before making the final assessment, as in these cases the assessee was clearly guilty of laches. As mentioned earlier, he submitted his returns on 31st December, 1958, and the final assessments were made only on 30th March, 1960. He had sufficient time to produce the C Forms, but yet he has failed to produce them. It is not the assessee s case that he requested for any further time for producing the C Forms and the assessing authority refused to grant him the time prayed for. For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss these appeals. The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondent (one set). Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Appeals dismissed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... invoices. In this connection, we also refer to the remarks of Benjamin on Sale at page 734 (eighth edition) 1. Every contract for a quantity of goods is an entire contract for that quantity, though the goods may be deliverable by instalments in the sense that full delivery is prima facie a condition precedent to the liability of the buyer to pay any part of the price. 2.. An instalment contract may be implied from the terms of the contract, or may be inferred from the circumstances. Thus, for example, it is implied when the goods are deliverable as required or on similar terms. As already observed, the contract in this case appears to have been one and entire, and the delivery of goods by instalments was effected only to suit the convenience of the parties and does not lead to the inference of a severable contract involving more than one sale transaction. We uphold the view of the Tribunal and dismiss the revision case. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the contract of sale, then explanation (2) to section 2(h) of the Sales Tax Act of 1939 will be attracted and the sales will be taxable in Madras. But this Court in several decisions including the latest decision in Jainulabdeen Sahib s case 1964 15 S.T.C. 413. has held the view that the decision in Ashok Leyland s case(1) interpreted only the scope of the ban under Article 286(2) of the Constitution, but where a sale is an outside sale within the meaning of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution, the ban under Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution will operate. Adopting this view, we see no ground to admit this revision case, which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... number, about 4,000 and odd transactions, and that most of the invoices themselves are each for a comparatively small value. The finding of the assessing authority in all the cases where exemption had been granted by him, was that the actual deliveries of goods were made outside the Madras State. The few invoices which are extracted in the assessment order show that they were for small amounts in regard to articles like paint, aluminium, tar and other articles. It is quite likely, as claimed by the appellant s learned counsel that in the exempted transactions, the goods besides being delivered to places outside the Madras State were also intended for consumption in the delivery States. In the above circumstances, it is hardly worthwhile to direct a remand of the case for fresh investigation and disposal. We are of opinion that no remand is called for. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner on the basis of rule 33(1) extracted above, he has been assessed by the Sales Tax Officer and this order has been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3.. In view of the fact that all orders prior to the date of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were vacated by the Appellate Tribunal, we think that any fresh assessment by the Sales Tax Officer must be governed by rule 33(1). If that be so, the assessment must have been completed on or before the 31st March, 1959. The assessment in this case is long after and, therefore, cannot be sustained. We therefore set aside the order of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and restore the original order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 15th February, 1957. 4.. T.R.C. No. 45 of 1963 is allowed but we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ect of those transactions. Section 4 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, also affords no assistance. All that it says is Where any Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. 7.. Such being the case we must hold that the General Sales Tax (Validation) Ordinance, 1964 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1964) and the General Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1964 (Act No. 8 of 1964) did not effect any amendment as intended for lack of a parent Act on which the amendment could operate and that this petition should be allowed as far as the tax in respect of the petitioner s transactions in copra is concerned. We do so, but without any order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it is not necessary to evaluate this contention and it is not considered in this judgment. 9.. The learned Advocate-General cited before us certain cases under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, cases like R. M. S. T. Ponnuswami Pillai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras 1929 3 I.T.C. 378. Those cases are of no assistance in deciding the question with which we are concerned. All that they say is that income derived from agricultural lands situate in a foreign State would fall outside the definition of agricultural income in section 2(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, corresponding to section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the entire income from purely agricultural operations as well as from manufacture would be taxable as an income from business. 10.. In the light of what is stated above the T.R.C. has to be dismissed and we do so. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1964 (6) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... achinery of the winding up court should not be allowed to be get in motion at the instance of a creditor whose object is not to obtain a winding up order of the company for the benefit of the general body of creditors but something else, namely, to secure (release of the company s assets from occupation and exploitation by a party, whom it has inducted into the company s colliery and who has advanced Considerably large sums of money for the working of the company s colliery. For the reasons mentioned above, this application fails and is dismissed. The petitioner will pay the costs of this application to Mr. Chaudhuri s client. Certified for two counsel. Whatever moneys the receiver has spent and whatever sums have been advanced to the receiver will be paid out of the assets of the company including royalty receivable by the company, If any. The receiver will stand discharged subject to the filing of his accounts. The receiver is directed to file his accounts within one month.
|
