|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 103 Records
-
1973 (3) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Investigation of the affairs of a company, Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases, Production
-
1973 (3) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
Charges – Registration of, Certificate of registration ... ... ... ... ..... of the moneys realised on sale of the mortgaged properties. In the result, the suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from out of the sale proceeds of the mortgaged properties (after defraying or providing for payment of any prior liabilities) in the hands of the official liquidator a sum of Rs. l,97,343.01 with interest at six per cent. per annum on Rs. 1,50,000 from the date of the suit till the date of payment. The plaintiff is entitled to recover costs also. Advocate s fee shall be calculated in accordance with the rules governing the same in original suit instituted before civil courts in the State. If the sale proceeds (after defraying or providing for payment of any prior liabilities) are found to be insufficient, the plaintiff is permitted to make an application for payment of the balance of the decretal amount from out of the other assets of defendant No. 1 in the capacity of an unsecured creditor. A decree shall be drawn up accordingly.
-
1973 (3) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Coffee seeds - Penalty and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... there is nothing in the rule to indicate that once the carrying, the transporting or the receiving has ceased the tobacco is not liable to confiscation on the other hand, the tobacco, in respect of which the offence is committed , is liable to confiscation. We, therefore, express considerable doubt regarding the correctness of this observation. At any rate, since that rule does not directly apply to the case before us. We are not expressing any final opinion on the correctness of that observation, nor can we do so, since that observation is also by a Division Bench. 19.The appeal is allowed in part and the confiscation order passed by the Department is upheld. Regarding the order appropriating the excise duty payable by the respondent, we agree with the view expressed by the Single Judge and hold that the Department has no right to collect the excise duty from the respondent. To that extent the appeal is dismissed. And we pass no order regarding costs. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1973 (3) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Recovery of duty (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... petitioner may have obtained separate licences for its various factories. But that is not so say that it was not to be treated as an assessee for payment of the excise duty. The liability was its. The trends of the statement in the petitions as also in the affidavit in reply would show that the petitioner was the assessee, was taking all steps for the filing of the appeal of the stay petitions and vis- -vis the Department it was the only legal person liable to fulfil its demand. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the debit entries made by respondent No.1 in the four accounts of the petitioner s four factories, copies of which are annexures 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the writ application, are quashed. It will, however, be open to the authorities concerned to take action in accordance with law in the light of the judgment, keeping in view the final results of the several appeals filed by the assessee as stated in the beginning of judgment. There will no order as to cost.
-
1973 (3) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Wool - Manufacture - Departmental clarification - Trade notice ... ... ... ... ..... e by the parties concerned. Inasmuch as I find no authority for the respondents to issue the impugned trade notice in respect of assessment under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by which either addition or extension of the definition can be made or meaning of the shoddy wool can be provided, in my opinion, the respondents are not entitled to enforce the said trade notice. 8.In that view of the matter the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the said trade notice No. 39/woollen-yarn 2/1965, dated the 21st May, 1965, and levy of duty on this item on the petitioner should be made ignoring the said trade notice. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus issue accordingly. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs of this application. The petitioner undertakes to this Court that for period of eight weeks the petitioner will not insist for the hearing of any appeal or assessment where the said notice might be relevant.
-
1973 (3) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court ought to have granted in the circumstances of the case the relief asked for by the appellant-company in its writ petition?
Held that:- The refusal to return the excess duty on the ground that the appellant-company had not applied within time provided by the Act was clearly unsustainable. Since there was not and could not be any dispute with regard to the invoice price being the real value there was no point in filing any appeal; nor could the omission to file any such appeal be a proper or valid ground for refusing relief to the appellant-company, when there remained no longer any dispute between the parties as to the invoice price being the real value of the imported items.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are satisfied that the High Court was not right in refusing the relief, in spite of its being satisfied that the excess duty was charged without any basis in law and also that the respondents could not lawfully retain the excess duty. In the circumstances we set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow the appeal.
-
1973 (3) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a part of the trust created by one Abdul Sathar Haji Moosa by his will dated 25th day of Kanni, 1099 M.E., is a public charitable trust within the meaning of section 4(b) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950?
Held that:- The 3/4ths of the income of the B schedule properties was primarily earmarked for the benefit of near relations of the testator. Hence, we are in agreement with the High Court that this part of the bequest cannot be considered as a public charitable trust. Appeals dismissed
-
1973 (3) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of ₹ 1,29,924 was liable to estate duty as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?
Held that:- We affirm the decision of the High Court answering question in the negative and in favour of the assessee
-
1973 (3) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the properties settled by the deceased by the six deeds of settlement (two of them dated 26th June, 1951, and four of them dated 30th June, 1951) valued at ₹ 7,38,656 or any part thereof was not liable for inclusion in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on his death ?
Held that:- The provisions for annual payments and maintenance made in the deeds as seen earlier are not charged on the properties settled. Hence the deceased cannot be said to have retained any interest in the properties settled. Therefore, it cannot be said that he retained any benefit either in the properties settled or in respect of their possession.
Hence, in our opinion, the facts of the case do not come within the scope of section 10. We, accordingly, allow the appeal of the assessee and hold that the value of the properties gifted or any part thereof is not able to be included in computing the value of the estate that passed on the death of the deceased. In this view, it is not necessary for us to consider the meaning of the word " extent " found in section 10
-
1973 (3) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of ₹ 94,500 incurred by the assessee in London is exempt under section 5(o) of the Expenditure-tax Act ?
Held that:- The trustees could not have paid them those amounts outside India. But, in fact, the trustees have year after year been remitting those amounts to the assessees to London and the assessees were receiving those amounts without any objection. From these circumstances the Tribunal has drawn the inference that, when the trustees remitted the amounts in question to the assesees at London, they were only doing so as the agents of the assessees. The Tribunal opined that the trustees must have been sending the amounts in question to London under the assessees' instructions. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is essentially a finding of fact. Therefore, all that we have to see is whether that finding is either perverse or not based on any evidence. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the assessees that the finding in question is either perverse or the same is not based on any evidence. Appeal dismissed.
-
1973 (3) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Additional Super Tax, Assessment Order, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... ions made, the true income for the earlier two years could be ascertained. If that were the true and correct position, the assessed income for the earlier two years has to form the basis and not the book results, for determination of the losses incurred in the earlier years . We are of the view, therefore, that the determination by the Income-tax Officer of the available profits in the case of the assessee is correct. In this case the question of reasonableness was not raised at any stage before and no attempt was made to question the finding or the estimate made by the assessing authority before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not called upon to go into the reasonableness or otherwise of the view taken by the Income-tax Officer while acting tinder section 23A. The question referred is answered in the affirmative and again the assessee. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (3) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1961 Act, Advance Tax, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rtition made by the Income-tax Officer under section 171, sub-section (3), could not be invoked by the assessee for the purpose of demolishing the legal fiction in section 25A, sub-section (3). Since no order recognising partition was passed under section 25A, sub-section (1), the legal fiction enacted in section 25A, sub-section (3), continued to operate in its full strength and vigour and the assessee must be held to continue to be a Hindu undivided family for the purposes of the old Act. That would include the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(a) read with section 18A(9). The Income-tax Officer was, therefore, entitled to impose penalty on the assessee despite the order under section 171, subsection (3), recognising partition with effect from 12th February, 1962. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us for our opinion in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (3) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Any Other Person, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Finding Or Direction ... ... ... ... ..... pecified in section 22(3). In other words, if section 22(3) is complied with, section 22(1) also must be held to have been complied with. If compliance has been made with the latter provision the requirements of section 22(2A) would stand satisfied. In the instant case, we are, therefore, unable to accept the construction of the order contended for by Mr. Dutt that there has been computation of the amount of the loss at nil by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. The true effect of the order is that there has been no determination of the loss by the Income-tax Officer and as there has, therefore, been no computation of any amount of loss by the Income-tax Officer by the said order, the order cannot be considered to be appealable, however liberally section 30 may be interpreted. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, against the assessee, and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. HAZRA J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (3) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Female Member, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... given the remuneration because Shanmugasundaram was being given such a remuneration. The Tribunal thought that, so far as Murugesa Mudaliyar was concerned, the reason for payment of remuneration can only be his relationship with the partners. Having regard to the above findings given by the Tribunal, we are not able to say that the service rendered by Murugesa Mudaliyar was such as to warrant the payment of remuneration at the rate of 0-2-0 in the rupee in the profits of the firm, in addition to the salary allowed by the Income-tax Officer. We have to, therefore, agree with the Tribunal so far as the remuneration paid to Murugesa Mudaliyar is concerned. We answer the question accordingly. The result is that the assessee will be entitled to deduction only in relation to a sum of Rs. 17,063 paid as remuneration to Shanmugasundaram as against the total amount of Rs. 28,405 claimed in respect of Shanmugasundaram as well as Murugesa Mudaliyar. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (3) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accepting Partition ... ... ... ... ..... mative and against the assessee. So far as the two questions referred to at the instance of the assessees are concerned, we have to state that they have not been properly referred and, therefore, we return the reference unanswered. This court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. Rathnam Nadar has held that where either the Commissioner or the assessee has made the application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it is not open to the other party in reply to the application filed by the opposite party to ask for reference of a question which it wants to be referred. The only way by which a party can ask for a reference of any question to the High Court is by filing an application under section 66(1) and, if that is refused, to apply to the High Court under section 66(2). Therefore, we have to hold that the reference is not properly before us and accordingly we return the reference unanswered. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (3) TMI 48 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Reference To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ision of the Delhi High Court in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes. relied upon by the Tribunal, was given without any reference to the aforesaid notification and, therefore, is not correct. Again, in the view we have taken, it is not necessary to refer to this decision, but since it has been relied upon before us also by Mr. Bhattacharjee for the department, we may only mention that this was a case where the power of revision of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under sections 263 and 264 of the Act was in issue. On the other hand, the question raised before us does not relate to the power or jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner. As such, this decision is not of much relevance in the present proceedings in the way we have disposed of the controversy. In the result, both the applications are rejected. The rules nisi are discharged. We will, however, make no order as to cost. BAHARUL ISLAM J.--I agree.
-
1973 (3) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the income determined by the Tribunal was Rs. 1,30,000. The books of the assessee were found to be unreliable. The learned judges, on the facts, taking into consideration the entirety of the circumstances came to the conclusion that the cash credits and the cash deposits represented concealed income of the assessee. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no justification for the imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Act. Mr. Rama Rao complained that the Tribunal overstepped its limits in making an observation in its further statement that he has not made a correct presentation of facts before the hon ble High Court. This observation of the Tribunal is unwarranted. For all the reasons stated, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. But, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 250. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (3) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, The Contract, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... gement made between the Zilla Parishad and the assessee, even then the amount paid by the assessee to the contractor would amount to a payment to the Zilla Parishad for the purpose of constructing the building. The arrangement was intended to ensure that the amount was actually spent for the construction of the building and nothing more. The arrangement itself indicates that the intention was to donate the money earmarked for the purpose of constructing a girls school building. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in reaching the conclusion that it was a donation of money and not in kind. Once it is found that it was a donation of a sum of money, then such a case would squarely fall within the ambit of section 88 of the Income-tax Act. For the abovesaid reasons, we would answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the department subject of course to what is stated above in regard to section 88 of the Act. The department will pay the costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (3) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... tion sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that there was no material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee had concealed its income. We find no force in this contention. In our opinion the Tribunal had ample material before it. The fact that the assessee had distributed larger profits to its partners than shown in the return coupled with the fact that it had not shown the income from interest and property, clearly establishes the charge of concealment. The fact that in the past the assessee used to be assessed on an estimate basis did not afford any justification for the assessee in not declaring its true income. The question as to whether the assessee was guilty of concealment or not is a question of fact and as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are supported by the relevant material, no question of law can be said to arise out of its order. The application fails and is dismissed with costs, which we assess at Rs. 100.
-
1973 (3) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tal income of the previous year or from any other source and that the quantum of the dividends regulate the rebate and not the super-tax itself, either the charge or the rate. The learned counsel for the revenue would be right in his submission if the quantum of dividends had been linked with the super-tax itself instead of linking it with the rebate to be allowed in the levy of super-tax. Mr. Balasubrahmanyan, however, refers to the Provisions of the Finance Act of 1957 and states that the sum of Rs. 45,630.75 the amount of rebates to be withheld under the second proviso to the said Part II, Paragraph D of the First Schedule, could be carried forward to the next year as unabsorbed reduction of rebate. But, having regard to the question referred, it is not necessary for us to go into that question. For the reasons set out above, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The revenue will pay the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
|
