|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 706 Records
-
1965 (12) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Partition - business assets received - ready gold account was not kept separate. The closing balance each year in the gold account was worked out at the end of each year by taking all the debt and credit entries in the entire gold account and treating them as one - held that the sale of three patlas of gold amounted to business so that any excess of the sale proceeds over the cost price could represent the assessable profit
-
1965 (12) TMI 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Mining Lease - Salami paid for running lease - income - assessability ... ... ... ... ..... ld, therefore, reframe the question in the following terms Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,20,000 or any portion thereof was the income of the assessee assessable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act ? And having reframed the question, I would answer it as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, a sum of Rs. 20,000 included within the disputed sum of Rs. 2,20,000 was a payment on capital account and as such not assessable to income-tax, whereas the remaining sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was a revenue receipt of the assessee and assessable to income-tax as such. In the result, the question referred to this court is answered partly in favour of the assessee but substantially in favour of the department. Since the assessee has substantially failed, he must pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax hearing fee Rs. 250. UNTWALIA J.- I entirely agree.
-
1965 (12) TMI 5 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Money sent to Commission agent through an employee was lost through a highway robbery - whether such loss would be allowable as a trading loss
-
1965 (12) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether writ can be issued to the Central Government when an application had been made to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for exemption from super tax
-
1965 (12) TMI 3 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessable profits of the assessee-company - inflation in the value of the opening stock - in the books of the vendor firm, the value of the stock-in-trade was shown at Rs. 1,77,285 as on the 31st July, 1956, while in the books of the assessee-company the value of the said stock-in-trade was shown at Rs. 2,10,285 - additions made by AO
-
1965 (12) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Petition for quashing and setting aside a notice under section 148 read with section 147(b) - validity
-
1965 (12) TMI 1 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
notice under section 34 - service of the notice - validity - contention that law as copy of the notice was not affixed at any conspicuous place in the court-house or at any conspicuous place in the income-tax office
-
1965 (11) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. In our opinion it was injudicious for the learned Sessions Judge to order the commitment of the appellants particularly so without giving any thought to the aspects of the matter to which we have adverted. Even the High Court has come to no positive conclusion about the propriety of the direction made by the Sessions Judge and has merely said that the Sessions Judge was not unjustified in making the order which he made in each of the applications. For all these reasons we allow the appeals, quash the orders of the Sessions Judge as affirmed by the High Court and direct that the trials of each of the appellants shall proceed before the Magistrate according to law from the stages at which they were on the date on which the stay order became operative. 16. Appeals allowed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 160 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oes not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. That view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Munnalal v. State of U.P. 1964CriLJ11 That position in law has not been disputed by Mr. Soni on behalf of the appellant. The point was raised in the lower court and the learned Sessions Judge has held that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. He has in this connection also painted out that this point as to the defect in the investigation was not taken by the accused during the trial. Mr. Soni has not been able to point out in what way the defence has been prejudiced or there has been miscarriage of justice by reason of this defect and therefore the argument relating to the defect in the investigation does not in this case affect the merits of the case. (After considering the facts and the evidence as recorded in paras 16 to 26 the conviction of the appellant was held to be validly made and was maintained along with the punishment awarded)
-
1965 (11) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that there is by infraction of the principles of natural justice. As a matter of fact, the assessees availed themselves of the alternative remedy, have filed appeals, which now have been heard, and orders thereon reversed. We find no exceptional justifiable reasons to persuade us to by-ass the statutory remedies. In view of these circumstances, as we said, we accept the contention for the Revenue that we must leave the assessees to the remedies provide under the Act. These remedies include eventually a reference to this Court under S. 66 of the Act. 9. The petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250 one set. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners say that it would be desirable that the appeals pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are disposed of at an early date. We think so. Learned counsel for the Revenue undertakes that he will communicate with the appellate authority, so that it may dispose of the appeals within two months from today.
-
1965 (11) TMI 158 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
... ...
... ... ..... ountry. In this contention he relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kanal Lal v. Kumar Purunendu Nath 51 CW.N. 227 where S.r. Das J., as he then was, refused to import this rule of construction in the construction of Indian settlement and wills. These contentions raise an interesting question but it is not necessary for us to decide it since this rule of construction, there are several other circumstances to which we have adverted which clearly indicate the intention of the settler to give a vested interest to the assessee in the corpus. (13) In the view of the matter, our answer to the question referred to us that the interest of the assessee in the corpus is neither a spes successions nor a contingent interest dependent on the assessee being alive on 31st March 1987 but is a vested interest and therefore capable of valuation and should be valued as such. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner. (14) Reference answered accordingly.
-
1965 (11) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Rajasthan is not in our opinion reasonable. All the facts which he has narrated bear upon past events in his official life. Nothing has been said which will show that there is in any manner an interference direct or indirect with the investigation of the offences alleged against him or the trial of the case before the special Judge, Bharatpur. A general feeling that some persons are hostile to the petitioner is not sufficient. There must be material from which it can be inferred that the persons who are so hostile are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice. Of this there is no trace either in his petition or in the arguments which were advanced before us. Nor does the petitioner allege anything against the special Judge who is trying the case. In this view of the matter we decline to order trans- fer of the case from the special Judge, Bharatpur. The petition accordingly fails and will be dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the revenue has to contend itself against another objection. It is common ground that the rent for which tax is sought to be levied relates to the period 1945-49, that is, before the Act came into force on April 1, 1951. The income is not taxable under the Act. In a recent decision of this court in Ramakrishnan v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, it was held that the Act cannot have retrospective operation so as to take into account an amount which a lessee had become indebted to pay by way of rent to the landlord, on a date long anterior to the coming into force of the Act. It cannot bring in for the purpose of levy the realisation of a claim for arrears of rent which arose long before the Act came into force. The two sums, therefore, are not liable to be taxed. In the result, we answer the first question referred to us in favour of the revenue and the second question in favour of the assessee. The revenue will pay the assessees costs. Counsels fee of assessee ₹ 250.
-
1965 (11) TMI 155 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rections of court, and partake the status of an "association of persons" producing income by their joint act or venture, these characteristics, in our view, are reflected on the beneficiaries as to the source, character and liability to tax of the income which ultimately belongs to them. The shares of the beneficiaries here are no doubt determinate. But, having regard to the source of and the mode in which the income was derived, we are of the view that the receivers were rightly assessed as an "association of persons" under section 10 and that the jurisdiction to so assess them is under section 41. Notwithstanding the approach made by the revenue and the Tribunal, and also the frame of the question under reference, the proper way to look at it, as we consider, is that the assessment should be treated as one made under section 10 read with section 41. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the revenue with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250.
-
1965 (11) TMI 154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave made false and defamatory statements. 21. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion of the several authorities, it is clear to me that the English Common law rule pertaining to absolute privilege enjoyed by Judges, advocates, attorneys, witnesses and parties in regard to words spoken or uttered during the course of a judicial proceeding is applicable in India, at any rate, in relation to civil suits filed for damages for libel or slander. The preponderance of authority obtaining in the matter, as I have indicated above, favours this view and I, therefore, feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that the alleged defamatory statements were made by defendant No. 6 on an occasion which was absolutely privileged, the plaintiff's suit to recover damages for the said slander would be not maintainable. 22. In the result, the two preliminary issues are answered in favour of the defendants and consequently the suit is dismissed with costs.
-
1965 (11) TMI 153 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ne whether the Company Court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with a particular matter relating to a company, the line of enquiry should be whether the Act has, in regard to that matter, created a right or liability not existing under the general law and has also, at the same time, given a particular and special remedy for enforcing it. BY THE COURT This petition is allow ed. The order dated the 18th February, 1965 of the Civil Judge, First Class, Rajnandgaon holding that he has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the respondent Hajarimal is set aside, and the learned Civil Judge is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with proper endorsement as required by Order 7, Rule 10, C. P. C. The respondent Hajarimal shall pay to the petitioners costs here and in the Court below. Counsel's fee of this petition is fixed at ₹ 200, which shall be paid by the respondent Hajarimal. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners.
-
1965 (11) TMI 152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uyer subsists and that he has power to transfer the same. This is applicable only to case where there is representation which the buyer accepted though he might have been aware of the defect but hoping that the defects would not affect him. But when the buyer himself knew full well that the seller had no title and was entering into the transaction with full knowledge of want of title this implied warranty cannot be invoked. The validity of the contract itself is questionable as opposed to section 23 of the Contract Act as the object of the agreement itself is fraudulent involving injury to the person or property of another. In the circumstances it has to be held that the plaintiff cannot recover the expenses incurred by him in the prior litigation. 5. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside an those of the trial court restored. There will be no order as to costs here. No leave. 6. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (11) TMI 151 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... r, 1961 (Annexure III), we must quash not only the orders of the Superintendent of Excise but also the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, and the order under revision passed by the Government of India (Annexure III). It does not appear that the appellate authority gave the petitioned an opportunity of being heard before disposing of the appeal. ( 16. ) For these reasons, I would quash the orders of the Superintendent of Central Excise dated the 13th March, 1961, and 17th March, 1961 (Annexures I and II), the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 30th June, 1961 (Annexure II-A) and the order of the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance (Government of Revenue) dated the 21st December, 1961 (Annexure III) and direct the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, to rehear the appeal of the petitioner after giving him a reasonable opportunity of representing his case and dispose it of according to law. There will be no order for costs.
-
1965 (11) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e majority judges in Jadavji Narsidas's case (supra), after arriving at their conclusion in the passage quoted above, made it clear that they were not deciding what would be the position if a partner in an unregistered firm claimed to adjust his share of loss in his individual assessment. The majority judges said “Whether the partners in their individual assessments would be able to take advantage of section 16(1)(b) and the decision of the Privy Council in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1936 4 ITR 173 (PC) (a point almost conceded before us) is not a matter on which we need pronounce our opinion.” This decision does not, therefore, assist the contention urged on behalf of the revenue and cannot be invoked by the revenue to negative the construction which we are inclined to place on the relevant sections of the Act. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1965 (11) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ness and propriety of the order passed by the District Magistrate. In our opinion, the position about the Comissioner’s powers was not different even under the unamended provision. It may also be relevant to point out that the power conferred on the State Government at all material times by s. 7-F was very wide. As we have already indicated, in exercise of its powers under s. 7-F, the State Government can pass such orders as appear to it to be necessary in the ends of justice. Therefore, there is no doubt that the relevant provisions of the Act did not intend, even prior to the amendment of 1954, to limit the jurisdiction of the Commissioner only to cases where irregularity or illegality bad been committed by the District Magistrate in granting or refusing, to grant permission. The result is, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal is set aside, and that of the District Court restored with costs throughout. Appeal allowed.
........
|
