|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 706 Records
-
1965 (11) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ; used in the Explanation and also in sub-s. (2) of s. 14 clearly indicates that the object of the section is to make a Hindu female a full owner of the property which she has already acquired or which she acquires after the enforcement of the Act. It does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did not in fact possess any vestige of title. It follows, therefore, that the section cannot be interpreted so as to validate the illegal possession of a female Hindu and it does not confer any title on a mere trespasser. In other words, the provisions of s. 14(1) of the Act cannot be attracted in the case of a Hindu female who is in possession of the property of the last male holder on the 'date of the commencement of the Act when she is only a trespasser without any right to property. For these reasons we hold that the judgment of the High Court is correct and this appeal should be dismissed. We do not propose to make any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 147 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only to prove that the debt became bad in the course of the accounting year, but also that it was a good debt at the commencement of the year. The argument on behalf of the department that no registered notices were issued, nor legal proceedings were taken and, hence, the debt could not be written off has no substance in view of the evidence already referred to. At any rate, we cannot say that the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this regard is not based on evidence, and warranting interference by this court. For all these reasons, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the allowance of ₹ 89,140 under section 10(2)(xi) of the Act on the ground that it is a bad debt and that the department was not justified in disallowing it. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee. The costs of this reference, ₹ 250, will be paid to the assessee by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Question answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1965 (11) TMI 146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emuneration which had accrued to him. If the resolution, therefore, in this case is to be read as having the effect of denying the salary during the period of nine months to the assessee or if it is to be taken that the assessee had waived the accrued remuneration, such denial, withdrawal or waiver occurred subsequent to the assessment year, and it would, therefore, be totally ineffective in the computation of the income for the assessment year which would be liable to tax under section 7. The entries made in the folio page relating to the assessee in the books of the company, having particular regard to the terms of the agreement, would appear to be irrevocable entries and it would not be open to the board of directors to cancel those entries in their effect by the resolution. On this view also, the remuneration for the period of nine months can be rightly brought to tax. The question referred to us is answered against the assessee with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250.
-
1965 (11) TMI 145 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... come-tax Officer in this very case for arriving at the income of ₹ 42,257 for the first 18 days of the year 1956, allows the assessee to pay the surplus up to 7.49 per cent. to the shareholders and, so long as this provision is not infringed and, in pursuance thereof, the assessee had credited ₹ 78,266.50P. long before there was any question of any transfer, this computation of market value cannot be questioned. We, therefore, hold that the calculation of the Income-tax Officer by which he arrived at ₹ 10,81,688 as being the value of the business on the basis that ₹ 3,06,930 was the share of surplus payable to the shareholders is wrong and that the market value must be placed at ₹ 16,54,969." We are unable to hold that, in taking that view, the Tribunal was unreasonable. We answer the question in this reference against the revenue. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250, one set. Questions answered accordingly.
-
1965 (11) TMI 144 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l is right here and has the support of Neptune Assurance Co. v. Life Insurance Corporation. But there can be no distribution to the shareholders out of a mere right which had not fructified into an actual refund. For the assessees our attention is drawn to Girdhardas and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and it is stated that a notional or deemed dividend for the purpose of section 23A cannot be regarded as dividend paid out of accumulated profits within the meaning of section 2(6A)(c). Though the analogy of this decision is not precisely in point, learned counsel for the assessee, in our opinion, is right when he contends that, on the fictional basis relied on by learned counsel for the revenue, it cannot be held that the sum of ₹ 1,49,444 represented accumulated profits on the date of distribution, to wit, March 10, 1955. We answer the question under reference in relation to both the sums against the revenue with costs; counsel's fees ₹ 250 (one set).
-
1965 (11) TMI 143 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... venant or incident of the contract of sale . In the case before us, the transport of manganese ore from Katangjhiri, that is from the State of Madhya Pradesh, to Gondia and Vishakhapatnam Port, places outside the State, was clearly the result of the contracts of sale entered into between the assessee and the purchasers referred to earlier. The sales were, therefore, clearly inter-State sales and not liable to be taxed under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The Sales Tax Tribunal was thus right in holding that the sales were not liable to be taxed under the local Act, and in remitting the matter to the Sales Tax Officer for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 5.. For these reasons, our answer to the question placed before us is that the turnover of the assessee amounting to Rs. 2,77,976.45 P. was the turnover of inter-State sales of manganese. The assessee shall have costs of this reference. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1965 (11) TMI 142 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nk that a rule nisi should have been issued in the petitioners application. We accordingly order as follows The appeal is allowed and the order appealed from is set aside. There should be a rule nisi directing the respondents to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue quashing the orders and/or resolution and/or proceedings sought to be impugned by the petitioners. If the taxes have not yet been realised there should also be an injunction restraining the respondents from realising the sales tax before disposal of the rule. The rule is made returnable by 10th January, 1966, before the learned judge taking applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are given liberty to amend the petition by inserting an additional ground in paragraph 13 stating that the order sought to be challenged by them in this petition is a nullity. The costs of this appeal will be costs in the application to be heard. G.K. MITTER, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 141 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nacting tax laws, so long as they are within the constitutional competence of the Legislature. The court is only concerned with the plain language of the law. It is well to remember that there is no equity in a taxing statute, which the courts are empowered to enforce, and also, that revenue is the very life-blood of a democratic welfare State of our pattern. The question of ensuring fair distribution of the burden of taxation is the patriotic privilege and sacred duty of the elected representatives of the nation, who are entrusted with this solemn obligation to be discharged faithfully and conscientiously and who are answerable to the people for their acts of commission and omission. The courts cannot intrude into this sphere except to enforce the constitutional mandates and to keep every one, including the State itself, within the bounds of law. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed but without costs. CAPOOR, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 140 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be fulfilled by supplying motor spirit from the stocks of the company from any place. The choice was left to the company as to the place from which it could transport the motor spirit. It is immaterial to the State Transport Department wherefrom the stocks came. It should also be remembered that it is only on the direction issued by the appellants that the spirit was brought in the appellants lorries as their own property and pumped into their storage tanks. It may be mentioned here that the bills were issued by the Madras office and passed for payment by the Accounts Officer of the Transport Department at Madras. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accede to the proposition that these intra-State sales will be converted into inter-State sales for the reasons adduced by the appellants. We are therefore unable to disagree with our learned brother in his decision. In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fees Rs. 250. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 139 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not a mode of service falling within the provisions of rule 77, it is not necessary to consider these submissions. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the notice under section 21 before 1st April, 1965, and that consequently the assessment proceedings under section 21 are barred by limitation and, therefore, without jurisdiction. As regards the other relief claimed by the petitioner, namely, the return of the books and documents which are said to have been seized from the petitioner s custody by the Sales Tax Authorities, Mr. Shukla on behalf of the respondents has stated that the respondents are prepared to return those books and documents. In the circumstances it is not necessary to grant any relief in that behalf. The petition is allowed. The proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1960-61 directed against the petitioner are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 138 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te his duties such as were cast upon him under section 11(4B). In my reading section 11(4B) also contains a power and there is an element of duty that is only an adjunct to the exercise of the powers. In the view that I take, I find inspiration from a decision of the Supreme Court in Messrs. Daluram Pannalal Modi v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax 1963 14 S.T.C. 675 1964 2 S.C.R. 289-290. Mr. Dutta also invited my attention to two other decisions of this Court, namely, Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills v. Member, Board of Revenue, West BengalI.L.R. (1949) 2 Cal. 347., and Balihari Colliery Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1957 8 S.T.C. 194 A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 160. It is not necessary for me to consider those decisions further because there is nothing contained in those two decisions which is contrary to the view which I have expressed hereinbefore. For the reasons stated above, this Rule is discharged with costs, hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs. Rule discharged.
-
1965 (11) TMI 137 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... support of Ram Chandra v. Laxman Das 1961 12 S.T.C. 367. It is true that clause (iv) of sub-section (2) is to the effect that subsection (1) will not apply to disclosure of the particulars to a civil court in a suit to which the Government are party provided that it relates to a matter arising out of any proceeding under the Act. But sub-section (2) cannot be read as in any way enlarging the scope of subsection (1) which has to be decided on the language employed by it. As there is no prohibition in sub-section (1) of section 57 against courts calling for records of the type mentioned in the sub-section, there should be no objection to marking in evidence such documents as the Court may think fit. It may be that section 57(1) is intended to protect assessees by treating the particulars contained in a specified document as confidential. But this privilege appears to be only a qualified one and is not absolute. On that view the petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in view of the decision of the High Court of Orissa in S.J.C. No. 2 of 1965 dated 29th September, 1958, it is open to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, to hold that any part of the contract for tunnel-holing by Messrs John Mowlem & Co. Ltd., with the Government of Madras (now Andhra Pradesh) is liable for sales tax?
Whether the contract entered into with Messrs John Mowlem & Co. Ltd., by the Government of Madras (now Andhra Pradesh) for tunnel-holing is in the nature of a contract of agency where the goods are Government property from the inception, and there is no passing of title in them, at any time, from the company to the Government?
Whether the contract for tunnel-holing between Messrs John Mowlem & Co., Ltd. and the Government of Madras (now Andhra Pradesh) is not composite and indivisible, but contains a separate and distinct contract for the supply of material, viz., plant as such, and the value of the plant being liable for the sales tax?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court. A covenant in the contract whereby the appellants undertook to deliver goods purchased by them on behalf of the State at the site where they were required by the latter is not inconsistent with the relation between them being of agent and principal, and a stipulation that the appellants "will remain responsible for transportation and insurance as far as the site" also does not detract from the overwhelming indications furnished by the other terms of the contract. The stipulation that goods purchased will be insured in the joint names of the Government of the State of Madras and the appellants is susceptible of no positive inference in favour of either case, and the learned Chief justice was right in observing that the term about the contractors' liability to pay customs duty, if any, was inconclusive.
It is not possible to raise an inference from the clause "the final accounting for the plant, and its passing into the hands of the purchaser will take place" in paragraph 8 of the contract, that till it was delivered at the site of the Machkund Dam, the appellants were the owners of the plant. The clause deals merely with the obligations undertaken by the appellants for "transportation and insurance" of the plant, and not with the passing of property in the plant from the appellants to the State of Madras.
-
1965 (11) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT
Certificate of registration - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court was right in holding that these two items, namely, spare parts of motor vehicles including tyres and tubes, and motor trucks cannot be included in the registration certificate of the appellant.
As far as furniture and sanitary fittings are concerned, these are covered by the ratio of the decision of this Court in the Indian Copper Corporation case (1964 (10) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). In dealing with stationery use of stationery undoubtedly facilitates the carrying on of a business of manufacturing goods or of processing goods or even mining operation but the expression 'intended to be used' cannot be equated with 'likely to facilitate' the conduct of the business of manufacturing or of processing goods or of mining". These observations apply to the items "furniture" and "sanitary fittings ". These two items are likely to facilitate the business of mining but it cannot be said that they are intended to be used in mining.
-
1965 (11) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT
It is no doubt true that when there is an alternative remedy, the High Court will not normally entertain an application under Article 226, but where, as in the instant case, the High Court has chosen to exercise its jurisdiction to grant relief to the respondent, this Court will not interfere with the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court - Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 123 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the hire-purchase agreements entered into by the appellant with its customers are transactions of sale of goods or are only documents securing the return of the loans advanced by it to its customers?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The intention of the appellants in obtaining the hire- purchase and the allied agreements was to secure the return of loans advanced to their customers, and no real sale of the vehicle was intended by the customer to the appellants. The transactions were merely financing transactions.
-
1965 (11) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a dealer who has been assessed to tax on the turnover of the previous year according to his election can change his option and elect the assessment year by filing quarterly returns with- out the previous sanction of Sales Tax Commissioner?
Held that:- Accept the appeal, and answer the question referred to the High Court in the affirmative. Judge (Revisions) was in error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to make an election under rule 39(1) without the sanction of the Sales Tax Commissioner, and the answer to the question referred to the High Court should be in favour of the assessee.
-
1965 (11) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT
GOODS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING OTHER GOODS FOR SALE — PURCHASE OF UNGINNED COTTON — USER OF GINNED COTTON IN TEXTILE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COTTON SEEDS — REFUND OF PURCHASE TAX
-
1965 (11) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a firm could be assessed to sales tax after it was dissolved?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court was right in holding that the assessment order on the dissolved firm could not be supported under the provisions of the Act. The High Court has given a correct answer to the question propounded for its decision.
-
1965 (11) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the said iron bars, flats and plates are not iron and steel within the meaning of item, No. 39 of the Notification No. 58, dated October 24, 1953?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Iron and steel used as raw material for manufacturing other goods are exempted from taxation. So long as iron and steel continue to be raw materials, they enjoy the exemption. Scrap iron purchased by the respondent was merely re-rolled into bars, flats and plates. They were processed for convenience of sale. The raw materials were only re-rolled to give them attractive and acceptable forms. They did not in the process lose their character as iron and steel. The dealer sold "iron and steel" in the shape of bars, flats and plates and the customer purchased "iron and steel" in that shape. We, therefore, hold that the bars, flats and plates sold by the assessee are iron and steel exempted under the Notification.
............
|
