Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1952 1952 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 25 of 25 Records

• 1952 (1) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... h in this argument which requires qualification only in this sense that the discretion vested in the Board must be exercised not arbitrarily but in a judicial manner. Though the judg- ment of the Board in this case is defective the subsequent resolution dated 19th May, 1949, makes it clear that the Board refused in its discretion to go into questions of fact in view of the failure of the assessee to maintain books and to produce accounts and because of the concurrent findings of the two courts as to the quantum of business. Upon the particular circumstances of this case it cannot be held that the refusal of the Board in its power of revision to go into questions of fact is illegal. The question referred must therefore be answered against the assessee. We do not propose to make any order as to costs of this reference. The assessee is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 100 in deposit since the first question has been answered in his favour. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1952 (1) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ice to the assessee. It is necessary to add that the Sales Tax Officer had wrongly thought that the amount of Rs. 1,349 which was not entered in the pucca rokar was suspicious. On this point the Board has commented that the amount of Rs. 1,349 has been explained and books were pro- duced to show that the item has been accounted for. For these reasons I hold that the failure to issue notice under Sec- tion 13(2) of the Act has caused prejudice to the assessee and in con- sequence the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer is invalid in the circumstances of the case. The case should now recommence from the stage when the Sales Tax Officer should issue notice under Section 13(2)(a) of the Act, on the basis of the returns which have been already furnished. After such notice is issued the assessment proceedings should be completed in the manner prescribed by the Act. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. SARJOO PRASAD, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1952 (1) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rd Motor Company to the applicant and a second sale by the applicant to the consumers. As the appropriations took place only at Bombay, it should be deemed that on the dates mentioned above, there was a transfer of property from the Ford Motor Company to the applicant and another transfer of property from the applicant to the consumer-both these transfers of property taking place at Bombay. As the transfers of property took place at Bombay, it follows that the sales of the motor vehicles mentioned above also took place at Bombay. I have already said that Explanation II below Section 2 (g) of the Sales Tax Act does not apply to the present case. 9. As the sales were made outside this province, no sales tax can be levied on these sales. The order of the learned Sales Tax Commissioner is, therefore, set aside so far as it pertains to the sales of the four vehicles mentioned above. H.S. KAMATH, PRESIDENT.-I agree with the conclusions of my learned colleague. Ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 1952 (1) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... eat them as accessories. They are attached to a motor, but this is done because Section 28 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires this to be done, obviously to facilitate traffic control and identification if not other police purposes. These are purposes extra- neous to the use of motor vehicles. I am of opinion that the number plates cannot be treated as accessories. With due deference to the Department, we must say that the contrary opinion expressed at page 228 of the Bombay Sales Tax Hand Book is not correct. I hold that the number plates in common with traffic signals are liable to sales tax at the general rate (1/2 anna) and not the special tax. P.C. HANSOTIA, MEMBER.-I agree. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. The order under revision is modified and it is directed that Rs. 1,951-1-0 out of the tax assessed and penalty imposed against the applicants be refunded to them after deducting therefrom the amount already refunded. There will be no order as regards costs. Ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 1952 (1) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN
  

  Compromise and arrangement, Oppression and Mismanagement

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... int of its being oppressive to some part of the members, the court would not have found it just and equitable to order the winding up of the company. This was not done and the present belated application has only the unjustified opinion of its authors to support it. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the arrangement proposed does not deserve to be considered by a meeting of the members of the company under the circumstances of this case and that the application for ordering a meeting of the members in that behalf should be rejected with costs. We fix the advocate s fee at Rs. 200 each for the respondent and for the liquidator s advocate. The amount shall be paid out of the assets in the hands of the liquidator. After this judgment was pronounced Mr. Ninan on behalf of the petitioner applies for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are not satisfied that this is a fit case for granting such a certificate.

  ---

12