|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 35 Records
-
1975 (6) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act are found to be irrelevant, or non-existent or bad the whole of the order of detention is vitiated. As regards the second part, in such cases the court cannot by applying the tests of reasonable man exclude the irrelevant or non existent ground or grounds and cannot consider, whether on such exclusion the concerned authority would have reached the same subjective satisfaction or not. (3) Since we answer the second part of question No. (2) in the negative in special criminal applications Nos. 204 of 1974 and 7 of 1975 the question whether detaining authority could have reasonably come to the con elusion that, in view of the validity of the common ground relating to the incident of 10-12-1973, the detention of the detenu could have been ordered, does not arise. The matter will now go before the division bench to pass appropriate orders in the light of the answers given by us to the questions referred to the full bench. Questions.
-
1975 (6) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y him in the foreign country. Article 20 (1) obviously would not be applicable in the present case. But the authorities, in my opinion, cannot issue an order of suspension under rule 10 (2) (b) of the rules for an offence which is not punishable by any law for the time being in force in India and for conviction of such an offence by a foreign court in a foreign country. The legislature of a country is territorial. It laws are intended to apply to matters occurring within the realm and not beyond it. (16) Accordingly, in my opinion, conviction and offence as contemplated under rule 10 (2) (b) of the rules are convictions and offences by Indian courts and in Indian laws. (17) In the result, this rule is made absolute. The impugned order of suspension which is annexure by to the petition is quashed by writ of mandamus. The respondents however, shall be at liberty to issue a fresh order of suspension in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Rules made absolute.
-
1975 (6) TMI 53 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of the defendant which have been duly audited. The balance sheet of the defendant for the year 1962 supports its case that no construction was made by it in 1962. 15. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, we agree with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant made unauthorised constructions in February 1962 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and that, accordingly, the lease of the defendant determined by forfeiture. In these circumstances, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge are hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. The appellants will be entitled to withdraw the rents deposited by the respondent in the trial court without furnishing any security. This disposes their application filed in Court on 3-3-1975. R.K. Sharma, J. 16. I agree.
-
1975 (6) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the Collector of Customs. These proper Officers are inferior to Officer who conduct adjudication proceedings under Section 122 of the Act, and exercise power's given to them by Chapter 14 of the Act. These superior officers cannot be bound by any decision taken by Officers inferior in rank. From this point of view as well, an order under Section 51 cannot be an impediment to adjudication under the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Act 22. In the result, we ere of opinion that the notice to show-cause dated March 8, 1967 in so far as it alleges contravention of Section 113 read with Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid, and the appeal is allowed to this extent. The Rule issued by the learned trial Judge in respect of contravention of Section 113 read with Section 114(i) is discharged and all interim orders in respect thereto are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. There will be a stay of operation of this order for six weeks. S.K. Datta, J. I agree.
-
1975 (6) TMI 51 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be sufficient in another, in the case of properties like vacant building site the presumption of possession following title can be reasonably applied as no act of possession can be exercised in relation to it except by constructing a building on it. This case is distinguishable on facts. It is not the plaintiff's case in the case in hand that defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were in casual or occasional possession of the land. The concurrent findings of the courts below are that defendants 1 to 5 are continuously in possession of the land for more than the statutory period putting the land to the use to which it could be put. 11. Learned counsel of both the parties cited a number of other decisions, but I have not referred to them as they are not relevant to the question involved. 12. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and those of the trial court are restored. I, however, make no order as to costs.
-
1975 (6) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vault can be regarded as a stock-in-trade. Then it is clearly an apparatus or fixture used by a business man for carrying on his business. It is from that point of view that safe deposit vault will clearly be "plant" within the ordinary meaning of that word. The House of Lords further considered the question of durability of the article since they were dealing with items like knives and lasts, but we are not concerned with that question, because it cannot be disputed that a safe deposit vault is more or less a permanent fixture. Thus, in view of the meaning given by Lindley L.J. in Yarmouth v. France 1887 19 QBD 647 (QB)and taking into account the dictionary meaning of the word "plant", in our opinion, safe deposit vault is clearly "plant" and will be entitled to the development rebate as provided in section 33 of the Act. Thus, our answer to question No. 3 above referred to is in the affirmative. The revenue will pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1975 (6) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reduction in the rate of tax by notification in the Gazette under section 10 of the General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner cannot contend that the containers (tins) by themselves as a class are exempt from sales tax or are not liable to be assessed to sales tax. At best, what he could attempt to establish is that the provision contained in rule 9(f) would enable him to claim deduction of their value when used as packing material if specified and charged for by him separately, without including it in the price of goods sold, if the liability to assessment is under the General Sales Tax Act that is not, however, sufficient for the purpose of attracting section 8(2A) of the Central Act. The result is that we find no reason to hold that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The revision is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to suffer their respective costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (6) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... y must repay or restore the said sum with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum to the assets of the company by way of compensation in respect of their misapplication, retainer, misfeasance and breach of trust. I also consider that Haridas Mundhra, Gwaldas Mundhra, Tulsidas Mundhra and M.C. Bagree are guilty of breach of trust in respect of the sum of money belonging to the company and I direct that the official liquidator do prosecute the said directors, Haridas Mundhra, Gwaldas Mundhra, Tulsidas Mundhra and M.C. Bagree and inform the Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department, Calcutta, to take proper legal action against them as he thinks necessary. In the circumstances of this case, I do not intend to pass such order for criminal prosecution against Shew Bux Mohta. I further order that the official liquidator is entitled to cost of this application against the respondents. Prayer of Mr. Pal and Mr. Bose for stay of the operation of the order for 3 weeks is granted.
-
1975 (6) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Company – Membership of, Powers of Court to rectify register of members, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398
-
1975 (6) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment of duty - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... 24. emsp Taking all these points into consideration, I hold that the petitioner is bound to fail on this point inasmuch as the provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 25. emsp The second point which was urged by Mr. Mukherjee was about the quantum of duty assessed by the customs authorities. It is contended that the duty assessed is arbitrary and cannot be supported. To my mind, the Writ Court should not go into that question and should leave the matter to the customs authorities, who are to act in accordance with the law provided in respect thereto, I accordingly, reject the contention of Mr. Mukherjee on this point also. 26. emsp The result therefore is that the Rule Nisi is bound to be discharged and is discharged accordingly. The application is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs. 27. emsp Stay of the operation of the order, as prayed for, is granted for four weeks. Application dismissed.
-
1975 (6) TMI 28 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the maximum penalty must be imposed in all the cases under consideration and in effect every case of tax evasion. The authorities have not brought to our notice any. There is no instance of past misconduct except what had been uncovered by the inspection on 17th July, 1972 resulting in addition for all the three years under consideration. The learned counsel had also given up his dispute regarding the turnover. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, we are of the view that consistent with the view of the Tribunal expressed in the several precedents, levy of penalty of 50 of the tax suppressed would be sufficiently deterrent and meet the ends of justice. We accordingly reduce and fix the quantum of penalty as follows - T.A. No. Asst. Year Quantum penalty fixed by the Tribunal Relief granted 274/74 1970-71 Rs. 8,050 Rs. 16,098 214/74 1971-72 Rs. 5,796 Rs. 11,592 1320/74 1972-73 Rs. 3,060 Rs. 6,123 9. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed as indicated above.
-
1975 (6) TMI 26 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... re realisation unless such assets have been treated as either stock-in-trade or assets of business which is continued by legal heirs. At any rate, we have taken the view that the business had been discontinued in the preceding year and that the sales whether during the life time or after would be realisation of capital assets of a dead business and therefore not liable to be brought to tax even after Burmah Shell rsquo s case. We may also add that in the view we had taken, it is not necessary to deal with the legal ground that revision itself was without jurisdiction on the ground that the assessing authority had no material for revision of the original assessment which was made after due consideration of all the facts. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the revision order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road III Division on 24th July, 1974 is cancelled. This would restore the original assessment made by the assessing authority dt. 31st Oct., 1972.
-
1975 (6) TMI 25 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the old Hindu Law without taking into consideration the effect of s. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. In these circumstances, we most accept the appellant rsquo s contention that 2.57 acres being one third of 7.70 acres left by his deceased father who got it on partition between himself and the appellant, cannot be included in the holding of the HUF of which the appellant is the Kartha. In this view, the appellant rsquo s holding which has been worked out at 8.98 acres uniformly for all the four years has to be reduced by s. 2.57 acres. After such exclusion, the total holding comes to 6.41 standard acres. This is admittedly below the minimum holding liable to tax under s. 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act, 1955. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to deal with the other grounds raised in the appeal. 5. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the assessments annulled. The appellant is entitled to refund of the institution fee for each of the years under appeal.
-
1975 (6) TMI 22 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... ation of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC), the Kerala High Court in the case of Dawn and Co. vs. CIT, 87 ITR 71 has held that the words has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed in s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 shows that means rea is an ingredient to be proved by the Department before imposition of penalty. A mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee would not automatically mean that the necessary ingredient of s. 271(1)(a) has been made out. It is the duty of the Department to point out circumstances from which an inference that the assessee acted deliberately in violation of law can be drawn. No such material has been brought on record by the ITO and hence no case has been made for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a). The AAC was, therefore, perfectly justified in deleting the penalty. No interference is called for. The departmental appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1975 (6) TMI 21 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... he year of account, he assessee purchased two new tankers. So the assessee would not be required to spend anything on the repairs of at least on these two tankers. The assessee gave no details before the authorities below that there was corresponding rise in the price of the goods sold by the assessee. In the absence of the such details, it would be difficult to accept that the expenses shown by the assessee were reasonable. In the immediately preceding year, the expenses were only to the tune of Rs. 77,442. Thus there is no satisfactory explanation from which it could be said that expenses shown by the assessee at Rs. 1,09,294 were reasonable. Looking to the aforesaid facts the material on record, and past history of the assessee in our opinion, the authorities below were correct in estimating the income from tanker at Rs. 10,000. It is also in consonance with the past history of the assessee. Thus this addition is sustained. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1975 (6) TMI 20 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ut could it possibly produce them after they had gone in hiding ? The ITO himself tried to summon them but his efforts also failed because the parties were no longer traceable. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the evidence produced by the assessee in support of the transactions, did not justify an inference that the transactions were not genuine. In our view, the AAC, correctly treated Rs. 61,000 to be genuine loan and allowed the interest of Rs. 2,131 relating to thereto. The appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 3523/73-74 is accordingly dismissed. ITA Nos. 3524 and 3525/1973-74 13. In view of our decision regarding the credits of Rs. 61,000 occurring in the assessee rsquo s books relating to the asst. yr. 1967-68 we find no reason to interfere with the AAC order relating to the Asstt. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 where by he deleted Rs. 3,411 and Rs. 1,070 respectively as interest paid on these deposits. These two appeals also are dismissed.
-
1975 (6) TMI 19 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ion show that the assessee had, in fact used ten rooms for the lodging business or that the income returned by the assessee was not what she believed to be her true income. In other words, we find no material to show that the assessee concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income or that she was guilty of fraud or gross or wilful negligence in returning her correct income. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that the assessee discharge the onus that lay on her under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the estimate of the income of the lodging section. We derive support for the above conclusion of ours from the decision in the case of CIT vs. S.P. Bhat 97 ITR 440 (Guj) relied on by the assessee. In the result, we cancel the penalty and allow the appeal. The ITO officer is directed to refund the amount of the penalty, if already recovered, to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1975 (6) TMI 18 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
... ...
... ... ..... sel for the assessee was that there was no evidence that the assessee wanted to make a disclosure under s. 271(4A) of the Act with regard to the books which had been seized by the Department and that those books had already been produced at the time of the original assessment. Our reading of the assessee s replies dt. 14th July, 1965 and 4th Dec., 1965 does not lead us to any such conclusion. If as contended by the learned counsel for the assessee the books were produced before the ITO at the time of the original assessment or that they did not contain any incriminating material against the assessee, where was the question of their close inspection and the contemplation of making a disclosure after the inspection was over and the copies of the documents and account were obtained by the assessee. That being the position we decide this contention against the assessee and in favour of the Department. 8. In the result all the assessments are annulled and the appeals are allowed.
-
1975 (6) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Show cause notice - Confiscation - Writ jurisdiction - Partnership firm ... ... ... ... ..... te of the seizure the car was in possession and control of Gour Kinkar Acharya who was not the registered owner of the car the registered owner was Bhimraj Banshidhar. A sister concern of Bhimraj Bansidhar, namely, Orient Finance Corporation has hire-purchased the car to Ram Krishna Arora who had handed over the car to Gour Kinker Acharya. If the car was used for purpose of smuggling, on the facts alleged by the Customs authorities it is impossible at the moment to hold that the two petitioner firms were not in any way concerned with smuggling operations. Now, Gour Kinkar Acharya came to be in possession of the car is a matter for investigation and until that investigation is completed the position as to responsibility for smuggling would not at all be clear. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that the notice to show cause under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 has to be sustained. In the result the cross-objection is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (6) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... titled to come to this Court at this stage as there was no jurisdiction in the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to pass the Orders which they have done. No questions of disputed facts are in any way involved in the present case and an ultimate decision of the Court is inevitable. The Petitioners have complied with certain conditions which is not disputed by the Customs authorities and in that view of the matter the Customs authorities had no jurisdiction not to grant the exemption. I, therefore, reject the preliminary contention on behalf of the Respondents. 10. In the result, I, therefore, allow the Petition, make the Rule absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) and set aside the Orders Exhs. H, I and L, annexed to the said Petition and direct the Respondents to refund to the Petitioners the Customs duty amounting to Rs. 7,08,083/-, recovered by the Respondents from the Petitioners, on or before 25th August 1975. The Respondents to pay to the Petitioners the costs of this Petition.
|
