|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 82 Records
-
1965 (3) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case by the sale of the whole business concern it could be held that there was taxable profit in the sum of ₹ 2,50,000 ?
Held that:- In the case of a concern carrying on the business of buying land, developing it and then selling it, it is easy to distinguish a realisation sale from an ordinary sale, and it is very difficult to attribute part of the slump price to the cost of land sold in the realisation sale. The mere fact that in the schedule the price of land is stated does not lead to the conclusion that part of the slump price is necessarily attributable to the land sold. There is no evidence that any attempt was made to evaluate the land on the date of sale. As the vendors were transferring the concern to a company, constituted by the vendors themselves, no effort would ordinarily have been made to evaluate the land as on the date of sale. What was put in the schedule was the cost price, as it stood in the books of the vendors. Even if the sum of ₹ 2,50,000 attributed to goodwill is added to the cost of land, it is nobody's case that this represented the market value of the land.
Thus the sale was the sale of the whole concern and no part of the slump price is attributable to the cost of land. If this is so, it is clear from the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. West Coast Chemicals & Industries Ltd. [1962 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] that no part of the slump price is taxable. We, therefore, answer question in the negative.
-
1965 (3) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a sum of ₹ 79,494 is assessable as capital gains in the assessment year 1948-49 ?
Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of ₹ 79,494 is not assessable as capital gains in the assessment year 1948-49, but only such part of it, if any, as is attributable to the capital gain made by the transfer of furniture valued at ₹ 18,805 is assessable. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (3) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case any larger dividend than that declared by the company could reasonably be distributed within the meaning of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the application of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act was in accordance with law ?
Held that:- The High Court correctly held that the Tribunal went wrong in taking into consideration the past profits instead of the past losses, the taxation reserves without consideration of the past liabilities for taxation, and the profits for the year in question disclosed in the balance-sheet, ignoring the actual tax assessed for that year. It came to the conclusion that, having regard to the smallness of the profits, the order of the Income-tax Officer was not justified. In the result, it answered both parts of the question referred to it in the negative. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT
Whether profit made by the appellant by sale of the property to Ranada Prasad Saha was taxable under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act,1922?
Held that:- It appears that Ranada Prasad Saha on coming to learn that the factory was for sale approached the company after the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant and he was informed that it had already been sold to the appellant. Thereafter Saha contacted the appellant and agreed to purchase the property. The property purchased was not such that an inference that a venture in the nature of trade must have been intended by the appellant in respect thereof may be raised. A person purchasing a jute press may intend to start his own business even if he is not already in that business, or he may let it out on favourable terms. The property purchased by the appellant was capable of being let out and it had in fact been let out by the company before the date of sale in favour of the appellant. It was capable of fetching annual income, and there is no evidence that at the material time it could not be reasonably let out. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (3) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant's suit is maintainable?
Held that:- Where the question merely is, whether the assessment had been made according to law, the assessing officer of the municipality having jurisdiction on the subject-matter and over the assessee the provisions of section 84(3) may be a bar to a suit. Where, however, the question raised is as to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to proceed against the assessee and levy on or collect from him an amount in excess of that permitted by the Constitution, the matter would be entirely out of the bar of that provision. Here since the assessing officer had no authority to levy a tax beyond what section 142A of the Government of India Act, 1935, permitted or what article 276 permits his proceedings are void in so far as they purport to levy a tax in excess of the permissible amount and authorise its collection and the assessment order is no answer to the suit for the recovery of the excess amount. To this extent, even the order of assessment cannot obtain the protection of section 84(3) of the Act and, therefore, the appellant's suit is maintainable.
For all these reasons we hold that the High Court was in error in dismissing the appellant's suit. We hold the same in the connected appeal and accordingly allow both the appeals with
-
1965 (3) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the tribunal was not justified in reducing the remuneration of the managing director from ₹ 3,500 per month to ₹ 2,500 per month?
Whether the tribunal was wrong in not allowing a sum of ₹ 84,000 as further income-tax under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act?
Whether the tribunal was wrong in allowing rehabilitation at rupees one lakh only and that a much larger sum was properly allowable as rehabilitation?
Held that:- The question whether the tribunal can reduce the remuneration which is based on a written agreement binding on the employer is therefore left open to be decided in a case where it will matter
In the present case the evidence on behalf of the appellant shows that no income-tax was in fact levied on the appellant under section 23A of the Income-tax Act. In these circumstances the tribunal was right in disallowing any claim for income-tax under section 23A of the Income-tax Act.
The tribunal was right in holding the appellant to its contention that it required rupees one lakh per year as rehabilitation for the four years 1957-60. It is not disputed that if rehabilitation is only allowed at rupees one lakh, the order of the tribunal granting 10 per centum of the basic earnings for the whole year as bonus cannot be assailed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (3) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Mustard oil ... ... ... ... ..... ecome due by way of excise duty up to March 1, 1963. Any sum in deposit with the Registrar in excess of that duty must be refunded to the petitioners on proper application being made before the Registrar. I direct the respondents to finish calculation of excise duty realisable from the petitioners within a period of two months from today and to inform the petitioners about the amount due in writing. C.R s 469W and 470 W of 1962 21. The points raised in these two Rules are the same points as in Civil Rule No. 464W of 1962. In the view expressed by me in civil rule No. 464W of 1962, these two rules also must fail but I do not make any order as to costs. 22. In these two Rules certain sums of money are being held in a separate account by the respondents. Out of that sums of money the respondents will be at liberty to appropriate so much as may be due by way of central excise duty, but must refund the balance, if any, to the petitioners, within a period of two months from today.
-
1965 (3) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Evidence - Statement ... ... ... ... ..... n (Exhibit No. 12) his name does not appear anywhere in the depositions recorded by the learned Trying Magistrate. Here also I do not find that there is any evidence worth noting to implicate him with the offence charged with by the learned Magistrate and under the same consideration the confessional statement of the co-accused cannot be treated as the foundation for framing a charge as stated before against him. On an overall consideration of these facts and the law it appears to me that the evidence on which the charge has been framed would not, if unrebutted, warrant the conviction of the petitioners before me and in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate should have discharged them. In the result, the Rules as issued in the aforesaid cases be made absolute and the charges framed against by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, Calcutta are hereby quashed in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. Let the petitioners be discharged from the bail bond.
-
1965 (3) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Valuation - Trade discount - Quantity discount ... ... ... ... ..... nt should hear the petitioners again and, after ascertaining such other facts as may be required modify the impugned order if necessary so as to make such deduction for quantity discount as may be found permissible on the facts established before him. 13. As stated above there will be a direction to the first respondent that he should again hear the petitioners with regard to their claim for deduction for quantity discount and after ascertaining such further facts as may be required make such alteration as may be necessary in his appellate order dated 18th August, 1962 (Exh. K to the petition). He should decide the question on the basis that the quantity discount in the present case amounts to a trade discount. If, as a result of any alteration in the said order any amount becomes refundable to the petitioners, the same should be refunded. Subject to this direction, the petition is dismissed. The petitioners will pay the respondents costs of the petition. Petition dismissed.
-
1965 (3) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of levy of penalty for concealment under section 28(1)(c) of Indian Income-tax Act,1922
-
1965 (3) TMI 12 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
Tribunal was in error in limiting the accounting period to April 29, 1944. Where an assessee has, in respect of a particular source of income profits and gains, once been assessed, he cannot vary the previous year except with the consent of the ITO - U/s 3 of the Act the tax is to be charged in respect of the total income of the previous year
-
1965 (3) TMI 11 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
Opportunity to be heard is not required to be given to assessee before ordering transfer of cases
-
1965 (3) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether proceedings for imposition of penalty could be taken only under the repealed Act and that the proceedings taken under the new Act were incompetent - assessee's petition dismissed
-
1965 (3) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital receipt or a revenue receipt - Under the lease the lessees agreed to pay Rs. 55,200 to the lessor towards the cost of completing the cinema
-
1965 (3) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether in the absence of any fresh evidence, the finding given in the assessment proceedings under the relevant IT Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act is conclusive in the matter of levy of penalty under s. 28(1)(c) of the IT Act and the corresponding s. 16(1) of the EPT Act respectively - Held, yes
-
1965 (3) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cash credit - on the failure of the depositor to satisfy the IT authorities about the nature of the sums and source from which he came in possession thereof, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an inference that this amount represented the undisclosed profits of the company
-
1965 (3) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Recovery certificate issued by ITO - recovery proceedings are quashed ... ... ... ... ..... t was next urged that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy. The existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the existence of jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution. It is one of the factors germane to the exercise of it. When violation of fundamental rights has been made out, it will be a sound exercise of discretion to exercise these powers and undo the mischief. The petition succeeds. The actions taken in the course of recovery proceedings after December 6, 1961, are quashed. The auction sales and the order of the Commissioner dated April 14, 1964, confirming the sales are set aside. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner s order dated April 16, 1964, cancelling the stay order is quashed. The parties are relegated to the position as it obtained on December 6, 1961. The respondents shall forthwith restore back the possession of the auctioned properties to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs
-
1965 (3) TMI 5 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
Trading receipt or capital recipt - Agreement that the company will act as the sole film distributing agent on commission basis - ordinary conduct of business of financing must necessarily include not only making of the contract but also the modifications or alterations thereof - so, sum received by the assessee was a trading receipt not in nature of a capital receipt
-
1965 (3) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business expenditure - assessee, carries on the business of supplying lime and sand and, for the purpose of obtaining sand, the assessee entered into a lease agreement with the Govt. under a deed - payment made under the lease deed were not of the nature of revenue expenditure
-
1965 (3) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pre-dissolution profits - assessment would, undoubtedly, be valid under the provisions of s. 26(2), even though it may not be valid under s. 44 - therefore, assessment made on the assessee-firm for the asst. yr. 1953-54 in respect of the pre-dissolution profits after its dissolution is valid in law
|
