|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 35 of 35 Records
-
1957 (5) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f course to the relief by way of the maximum licence fee payable being held to be Rs. 1000 instead of Rs. 2000. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 455 and 590 to 596 of 1956 are dealers in cotton yarn. No special points arise in their case, and subject to the relief afforded by the striking down of the enhancement of the maximum of the licence fee, their petitions also are dismissed. W.P. No. 158 of 1956 is concerned with the licence fee payable by a commission agent. In the case of these traders licensing is absolutely essential in order to find out whether they dealt with on their own account or on behalf of others. No separate arguments were addressed to us by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but he adopted those of Mr. Venkatasubramania Ayyar and Mr.Nambiar who argued the general points. This petition will also stand dismissed subject to the modification we have allowed in the case of other petitioners. There will be no order as to costs in any of these petitions.
-
1957 (5) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Sales Tax Officer is entitled under section 10(2)(b) of the Act to make an assessment on any figures of gross turnover with- out giving any basis to justify the adoption of that figure?
Held that:- The High Court was in error in answering the question referred to it. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. The answer to the question referred to the High Court is in the negative. Appeal allowed.
-
1957 (5) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Requirements with respect to memorandum and Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1957 (5) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the receipts from the sale of sal trees can be said to be agricultural income under section 2(1) and exempt from taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- Out of the categories (a) to (g) set out in the statement of facts, none of the operations was assimilated to basic operations in agriculture and unless and until there was even one basic operation on the land itself the rest of the operations could not be tacked on to them so as to convert the whole of them into agricultural operations. We are of opinion that the ratio adopted by the majority of the judges of the High Court was erroneous and the referred question ought to have been answered in the negative. Appeal allowed.
-
1957 (5) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
Whether interest on securities was a part of bank's income from business carried on by it?
Whether the assessee was entitled to set off the carried over loss of the previous year against income during the assessment year?
Held that:- The appeal would be allowed and the case remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision of the reference after getting from the Tribunal a fuller statement of facts about this part of the case, whether the securities in question were a part of the trading assets held by the assessee in the course of its business as a banker. Appeal allowed. Case remanded.
-
1957 (5) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
Whether questions of law, if any, arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal?
Held that:- As to what are the characteristics of the business of dealing in shares or that of an investor is a mixed question of fact and law. What is the legal effect of the facts found by the Tribunal and whether as a result the assessee can be termed a dealer or an investor is itself a question of law.
The questions of law that arise out of the order of the Tribunal are :
"(1) Whether there are any materials on the record to support the finding of the Income-tax Officer that the assessee company was a dealer in shares, securities and immovable property during the assessment year in question ?
(2) Whether the profits and losses arising from the sale of shares, securities and immovable properties of the assessee company can be taxed as business profits ?"
We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remit the case to the High Court for directing the Tribunal to state a case on the aforesaid two questions. Appeal allowed. Case remanded.
-
1957 (5) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on a true construction of the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the income of the three minor sons of the assessee is liable to be included in her total income?
Held that:- The High Court observed that the word "individual" as used in section 16(3) of the Act was ambiguous and referred to the quoted passage from the Inquiry Committee's Report, 1936, as also the statement of objects and reasons and came to the conclusion that the word "individual" was restricted to the male of the species and it was not the intention of the Legislature to impose additional tax on a mother assessee by including in her income the income of her minor children arising from the benefits of partnership of a firm in which the mother and the minors were partners. Thus the referred question was rightly answered by them in the negative.
-
1957 (5) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the receipts of Bankura forest lease are capital receipts or, in the alternative, constitute agricultural income ?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the receipts from Kharagpur forest are agricultural income ?
Held that:- The operations which were performed by the assessee in the cases before us had nothing in common with the basic agricultural operations and did not have the effect of converting the forest produce which was of spontaneous growth into produce raised upon the land by agriculture .
The High Court was right in the decision to which it came and the questions were rightly answered by it against the appellant and these appeals of the appellant must be dismissed
-
1957 (5) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts of the case the commission earned by the managing agents for managing the Raymond Woollen Mills was income earned by the managing agents for services rendered and not income derived from property held under trust or for other legal obligations and, therefore, not exempt under section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act ?
Whether on the facts of the case the business carried on by the trustees falls to be considered under section 4(3)(i) or section 4(3)(ia) of the Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- Confining ourselves solely to the language of section 4(3)(i), there is nothing in it which restricts in any manner the normal and accepted meaning of the word 'property,' and excludes business from its connotation.
A reading of Tribunal's order shows that it was not really satisfied about its correctness. Accordingly, when the appellant applied for reference under section 66(1) of the Act, the Tribunal referred the second question also for the decision of the High Court. But in the view which the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court took that business was not property within section 4(3)(i), it became unnecessary for them to express an opinion on that question. Now that we have held that the word "property" in section 4(3)(i), standing by itself, is susceptible of a wider connotation so as to include business, it becomes necessary to consider the second question under reference. Learned counsel on both sides agree that it would be more satisfactory that this question should be remitted to the High Court for determination.
Remand the case to the High Court of Bombay for a fresh disposal of the reference on a consideration of the second question
-
1957 (5) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether income derived from the sale of sal and piyasal trees in the forest owned by the assessee which was originally a forest of spontaneous growth "not grown by the aid of human skill and labour" but on which forestry operations described in the statement of case had been carried on by the assessee involving considerable amount of expenditure of human skill and labour is agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) and as such exempt from payment of tax under section 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act?
Held that:- In view of the fact that the forest is more than 150 years old, the areas which had thus become denuded and replanted cannot be considered to be negligible. The position therefore is that the whole of the income derived from the forest cannot be treated as non-agricultural income. If the enquiry had been directed on proper lines, it would have been possible for the Income-tax authorities to ascertain how much of the income is attributable to forest of spontaneous growth and how much to trees planted by the proprietors. But no such enquiry had been directed, and in view of the long lapse of time, we do not consider it desirable to direct any such enquiry now. The expenditure shown by the assessee for the maintenance of the forest is about ₹ 17,000 as against a total income of about ₹ 51,000. Having regard to the magnitude of this figure, we think that a substantial portion of the income must have been derived from trees planted by the proprietors themselves. As no attempt has been made by the Department to establish which portion of the income is attributable to forest of spontaneous growth, there are no materials on which we could say that the judgment of the Court below is wrong. Appeal dismissed.
-
1957 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner fell to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Patiala Income-tax Act or the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Whether the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal fell to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Patiala Income-tax Act or the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Whether, on the assumption that the assessee company was not bound to deduct tax, its appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were competent in law ?
Held that:- As regards income of the accounting year 1949-50 or the year of assessment 1950-51 no State law of income-tax was operative in any Part B State. It appears that the error which has crept into the judgment of the High Court has been due to misreading the year 1949-50 as being assessment year and not accounting year. Therefore, both for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 the law applicable would be the Patiala income-tax law and not the Indian Income-tax Act and consequently no appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer was competent.
Answer to question Nos. 1 & 2 : The Patiala Income-tax Act was in operation and no appeals lay and Ques no. 3 is in negative. Appeal allowed.
-
1957 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee company made a capital gain amounting to ₹ 81,81,900 within the meaning of section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- The answer was correctly given by the High Court of Bombay. The transaction in its true legal character was a relinquishment of the managing agency and was neither a sale nor a transfer thereof. Therefore, the High Court correctly answered the question in the negative. Appeal dismissed.
-
1957 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on a proper construction of the agreement dated 29th November, 1928, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the applications by the assessee for the registration of the partnership showing Steels and Ellermans as the only partners thereof (with their specific shares set out as against each of them and signed only by them) were rightly refused by the Income-tax Officer?
Held that:- There is no justification whatever for contending that the agreement dated 29th November, 1928, was a composite agreement which could be divided into two parts, viz., (1) a tripartite agreement between the members of the Combination and (2) an agreement of partnership between Steels and Ellermans only, Burma being merely a confirming party to it in so far as a part of its assets were thrown into the Combination.
The answer given by the High Court to the referred question in the negative was accordingly correct and this appeal will be dismissed.
-
1957 (5) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ Petition - Delay ... ... ... ... ..... y. 10.In regard to the second point about the form of the writ open to the petitioner for the reliefs he is claiming, I consider the objection as having some force but the petitioner has since filed W.P Nos 374 and 375 of 1957 for the issue of writs of certiorari and in view of this, this objection is no longer maintainable. 11.The last of the objections was that the petitioner should have gone up in revision to the Central Board of Revenue. Whatever might be said as regards the case where an appeal is provided a statute the mere existence of a right of revision cannot be held to be an adequate alternative remedy sufficient to justify the court to refuse relief to the petitioner. I therefore overrule this last objection also. 12. The result is W. P. Nos. 374 and 375 of 1957 are allowed and the orders refusing refund of the excess customs duty are set aside W. P. Nos. 807 and 1016 of 1956 are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.
-
1957 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Redemption fine — Confiscation — Penalty — Natural justice — Fine and penalty — Imposition is a quasi-judicial function
|
