-
1957 (3) TMI 83
... ... ... ... ..... a certificate under the Revenue Recovery Act sent by a person competent to do so. Such a certificate has not been received by the proceedings taken by him are therefore wanting in jurisdiction. This cannot be considered merely as an irregularity in procedure since thee Collector gets jurisdiction only on receipt of a valid certificate. The proceedings for recovery of tax by the second respondent must therefore be quashed. The question whether proceedings for recovery of tax are barred under section 66(7) does not therefore....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 82
... ... ... ... ..... fied, there being no question of any discovery such as was necessary before 1948. The language of the section, as it now stands, is quite apt and applicable to the facts before meIt is, however, alternatively contended that as section 35(5) expressly provides for a case like the present one, that special provision excludes the applicability of a general provision like section 34. Whatever force there may be in the argument, I do not think I am called upon to pronounce upon its merits ; for, in accordance with the decision ....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 81
... ... ... ... ..... the plaint till date of payment. The omission in the judgment, in our view, is due to oversight. We, therefore, amend the judgment and give the appellant interest at 6 per cent, per annum from date of plaint till date of payment. 24. Another point is raised in Appeal No. 481 of 1951. It is said that by the same parity of reasoning we adopted in the connected appeals, we should have allowed this appeal also in full. This obviously cannot be decided at this stage. The appellant, if advised may take out an application for rev....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 80
... ... ... ... ..... ame description. This circumstance does not in any way detract from the validity of the notice. The notice is quite in order and there is no defect which is fatal to the suit. Hence the memorandum of cross-objections is dismissed with costs. 30. (These appeals and the memorandum of cross-objections having been set down for being mentioned this day, the Court made the following) ORDER P. Chandra Reddi, J. 31. There is absolutely no justification for deleting the order regarding costs. We have deliberately disallowed costs t....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 79
... ... ... ... ..... ice of the trees was also to be paid to the assessee in installments spread over a similar period. The period was of several years. While these facts existed, it is not possible for us to hold that there was not material for the finding given by the Tribunal that the income had arisen from sale of trees which had become stock-in-trade of the assessee when they were served from the forest and this severance was with a view to earn an income from the sale of such trees as they reached their cutting age. This finding having b....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 78
... ... ... ... ..... y fact but merely the view which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held on those facts. Because of the view of the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it appears that the Income-tax Officer also then changed his view and decided to assess this income as the income of Pannalal as an individual. Such a change of view by the Income-tax Officer is not a sufficient ground justifying proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act. No definite information having been received by the Income-tax Officer about any f....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 77
... ... ... ... ..... t this stage, this Court cannot ask for a finding on that question of fact and then frame a question of law if that question of fact happens to be answered in favour of the assessee. 6. Then only questions on which a statement of a case can be called upon by the Court are those which arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. The question cannot arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. As the question of fact now sought to be raised was not raised before the Tribunal and, no finding was recorded on it, the ....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 76
... ... ... ... ..... nd prohibi- tion, restraining the Income-tax Officer from giving further effect to the very notices, which were being quashed, appear to me to have been unnecessary and inapposite. The writ of prohibition, again, does not seem to have been appropriate, because that writ goes only to inferior Tribunals to control judicial or quasi judicial action and is not intended to control executive acts or administrative action aimed at collection of revenue. These observations which I have felt bound to make will not cause any prejudi....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 75
... ... ... ... ..... by an order in council to a group of British possessions which concept, as the Supreme Court pointed out became repugnant to the concept of a Sovereign Democratic Republic which our country became upon the passing of the Constitution and in applying an English Act like the Copyright Act which was applicable to His Majesty's Dominions to the whole of India. Reference was also made to Bill No. XV of 1955 wherein provision has now been made for the repeal of the Indian Copyright Act, 1914 and the English Copyright Act of ....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 74
... ... ... ... ..... on that arises for decision is whether Exhibit F can be sustained in view of Exhibit C. Section 31(3)(f) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order under section 28, confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or reduce the penalty and section 33(2) The Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by an Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31, direct the Income-tax Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal agains....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 73
... ... ... ... ..... llant that the finding that the payments were made from circulating capital, that they constituted the purchase of stock-in-trade and that the timber was in fact stock-in-trade, were findings in fact which should not be disturbed. In truth they are findings in law or of mixed fact and law which, for the reasons I have already expressed, are opposed to all the real findings of fact and documents in the case. In my opinion, the court below came to a right conclusion. The assessments, I apprehend, have still to be considered ....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 72
... ... ... ... ..... he meaning of section 46(2) of the Act. That question did not arise for consideration in Rajah Manyam Meenakshamma v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1956 30 ITR 286. In our opinion the petitioner was not an assessee within the meaning of section 46(2) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to treat him as an assessee for the issue of a certificate under section 46(2). Since the jurisdiction of the Collector depended on a valid certificate issued under section 46(2), the notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar on ....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 71
... ... ... ... ..... as wrongly decided. The conclusions for which I have endeavoured to give my reasons at some length are (1) that on the notice under section 34, as issued on the respondent in the present case and issued also on another partner, there could not possibly be an assessment of the firm or of the firm's income ; and (2) that hence, after the dissolution of a firm, an assessment to income-tax of its pre-dissolution income can only be made, assuming section 44 applies, on the persons who were partners of the firm at the time o....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 70
... ... ... ... ..... e of payments made to employees when the question that has to be gone into depends upon the extent of the services rendered by the directors or the employees. The distinction sought to be drawn by learned counsel between this case and the Full Bench case relied upon by us does not, therefore, exist. The views expressed in that case are fully applicable to the facts in the present case and lead to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground on which the Excess Profits Tax Officer and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 69
... ... ... ... ..... reasons I am unable to agree with my learned brother's view, which is also the view of the learned Judges who decided the Patna Pull Bench case, that in cases of such contravention the agent and the manager have got a co-liability with the owner. I prefer to accept the view expressed by the Nagpur High Court in AIR 1956 Nag 71 (F), although on different grounds. I may also point out here that the Centra1 Government thought it advisable to amend the Coal Mines Pithead Bath Rules of 1946 by expressly extending the liabil....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 68
... ... ... ... ..... ntal rights under the Constitution. 43. For all the above reasons we are unable to hold that any fundamental right of the petitioners has been infringed. This petition is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. 44. In holding that quasi-permanent allotment does not carry with it a fundamental right to property under the Constitution we are not to be supposed as denying or weakening the scope of the rights of the allottee. These rights as recognised in the statutory rules are important and constitute....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 67
... ... ... ... ..... 1 and 2 do not claim to be in actual possession of the property at the date of the attachment, viz., 3-2-55 nor is it their case that Nautamlal is in possession on their behalf though this factor is not relevant in this case. They thus fail to establish the ingredients of Rule 59 and they have therefore no right to maintain the application for removal of attachment. The order of the learned Civil judge, Senior Division, cannot therefore be sustained and must be set aside. It is true that the property was not in possession ....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 66
... ... ... ... ..... or revocation of leave, I see no reason to grant it. The plaintiff has made a case in the plaint, according to which a part of the cause of action did arise in Calcutta. Since the suit is being stayed and the main question will be tried at Bombay, the question of convenience hardly survives. 36. In the result, Appeal No. 64 of 1955 is allowed in part. The order of the learned Judge, dated the 28th April 1953, in so far as, by it, he refused to stay the present Suit under Section 10 of the Code is set aside and it is direct....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 65
... ... ... ... ..... the letting of accommodation and provision of various services, was rejected. We are of opinion that the ratio decidendi of these cases, namely, Ballygunge Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal 1946 14 I.T.R. 409 and Salisbury House Estate Ltd. v. Fry (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) 1930 15 Tax Cas. 266 has no application to the present case. For these reasons we hold that the expenditure of ₹ 6,005 and ₹ 5,542 incurred by the assessee for the repair and maintenance of residential quarters in the assessment....... + More
-
1957 (3) TMI 64
... ... ... ... ..... nt was not income from business so that it was not liable to excess profits tax and yet was liable to income-tax. When holding that the assessee had an income of ₹ 75,000 in the subsequent year, which is now in question, it was in these circumstances necessary for the Income-tax Officer or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to indicate why it was held that this amount was income from business in this year when the similar amount in the previous year had been assessed to tax on the basis that it was income from some so....... + More