Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (10) 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 40 of 47 Records

• 1967 (10) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he Board which is uncalled for. The simple question is whether an exercise book is the same thing as an examination answer-book and the answer must be in the negative. We have already pointed out that the entry being an entry granting exemption, must be strictly construed against the person who claims exemption. Construed in that manner, there is no scope for enlarging the meaning of the expression exercise books to include examination answer-books as well. The Sales Tax Tribunal was not, therefore, right in setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question is that the examination answer-books are not exercise books and as such they are not exempt from sales tax under entry 14 of Schedule I to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The question is answered accordingly. The assessee shall pay the costs of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 52 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... petitioner did not appear because he thought that he was not liable to pay any tax. In spite of this, the petitioner was served with another notice by the Assessing Authority to appear on 6th of March, 1962, and was asked to produce the relevant accounts for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The petitioner again did not appear, but sent a registered letter informing the authority that he was not liable for any tax. In this situation, the Assessing Authority proceeded to arrive at an ex parte assessment which would, in other words, be best judgment assessment. The petitioner was given ample opportunity by the authority to represent his case. The petitioner did not avail of it. Therefore, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner s proper remedy is to move the authorities under the Act by way of appeal. For reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... fore the Tribunal, but it was represented that since a tax revision case is pending in the High Court, the hearing and disposal of the appeals should be stayed pending the disposal of the tax revision case. While, in the result we are in agreement with the minority opinion, we consider it necessary to point out that it is not open to the Sales Tax Authorities to ignore a decision of the Tribunal even if it be only by a majority, and proceed as if the minority opinion is binding upon them. This practice cannot but be strongly deprecated. The result is that the tax revision case is allowed with costs. The writ petitions are dismissed without costs, with a direction, however, that the validity of the Deputy Commissioner s order rejecting the C Forms given by dealers in other States and in respect of which, amounts have already been deposited, may be considered by the Tribunal before disposing of the appeals. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Writ petitions dismissed and revision allowed.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 50 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... herein it was held by this Court that packing material cannot be said to be an article used as an ingredient in the manufacture of boot-polish nor could it be described as an article consumed in the process of manufacture of the boot-polish. It was held there that the articles were utilised for the purposes of packing for the facility of sale. In this view of the matter, it was held that the tin-dibbies and cartons manufactured by the dealer for packing the boot-polish could not be regarded as raw material . That case is not of any help to the revenue, as we have pointed out that the paper is not used merely as a packing material for the purposes of convenience of sale, but the paper is used as wrapper for the purposes indicated by us. 7.. For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question, referred to us, is in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P., shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Hearing fee Rs. 150. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... by the Government itself, in a letter to the Accountant-General, Madras, No. 100554-CT-II-(2)/65-66 Revenue Department, dated 24th November, 1965, stating that the word machinery occurring in entry 41 can be interpreted to mean electrical machinery. In view of this clarification and also in view of the result of the application of the principles of interpretation of statutes, referred to earlier, it cannot be seriously maintained that the textile machinery concerned in these two writ petitions, which are admittedly not electrical goods can be brought under entry 41 for the purpose of single point levy. The writ petitions are therefore allowed and the orders levying single point assessment on the corresponding turnover are quashed by writs of certiorari. It will be open to the authorities to assess the petitioners to normal assessment at the multi-point levy. The petitioners will get their costs in these two writ petitions. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 (one set). Petitions allowed.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ade, the assessee informs the assessing officer of the correct return of the turnover. We observed that in such a case the officer was bound to make the assessment only on the basis of such correct return and not on the basis of the provisional returns. No doubt this is not a case of provisional returns, but all the same, the principle of this judgment applies. The very concept of best judgment presupposes the absence of a return, or a return which is incorrect or incomplete. The return submitted cannot, as we mentioned, be ignored if it is filed before the assessment order is made, only on the ground that it has been belatedly filed. On that view of the matter, the propriety of the levy of penalty does not arise for it should fall with the main order of assessment. The order of assessment is quashed and the petition is allowed. The assessing officer will, however, be at liberty to proceed with the assessment having due regard to the return filed. No costs. Petition allowed.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
  

  Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up – Application for, General, Advertisement of petition

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
  

  Remuneration of directors

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... laims both in respect of the resolution dated June 22, 1952, and the resolution of May 20, 1957, at a number of places. Moreover, the word remuneration has also been used in the subsequent resolution dated September 12, 1958, and it is quite clear that the argument that the claim was not on account of any remuneration or salary but related to the recovery of daily expenses is an after-thought and it did not deserve to be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The remaining argument is that regulation 69(1) of the articles of association of the company also authorised the directors to pass the resolutions dated June 22, 1952, May 20, 1957, and September 12, 1958, authorising the payment of the remuneration or allowances to them. I have gone through the regulation and I nave no doubt that it has no such effect, for it refers to the other matters mentioned in it. For the reasons mentioned above, I see no force in the three appeals and they are dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Return as to allotment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... er of the opinion that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the Registrar to register the return if it is not defective or incomplete in the sense explained by me hereinbefore. Regulation 17 must be interpreted in the light of the source from which it stems and the combined reading of the statute and regulation 17 shows that the Registrar was, in the circumstances of this case, obliged to register the return. Regulation 17 has been framed under section 609 of the said Act under which the Regulations may prescribe duties of the various officers including the Registrar. The power to decide the validity of such like transactions must, therefore, be found elsewhere and in the Act I find no such power in the Registrar. In these circumstances, I would allow the appeal and issue direction to the Registrar of Companies to register the return of allotment. There would, in the circumstances, be no order as to costs. Inder Dev Dua, C.J.-I agree. T. V. R. Tatachari, J.-I Agree.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator and Power to apply to court to have questions determined or powers exercised

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Interest received on securities issued by the Mysore Darbar (State Securities) by reason of a notification under s. 60 of the IT Act, 1922 - held that, it is exempt from taxation

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Interest on Mysore Govt. Loan - assessee would be entitled to the exemption claimed in respect of interest - donations for charitable purposes - assessee was entitled to this exemption u/s 15B in respect of donations

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee-company - claim for exemption u/s 25(3)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nd the omission of the word same . In the result we think that this amount of loss of Rs. 3,28,825 ought to have been allowed to the assessee as a set off against the profits for the year 1949-50. We accordingly answer the question No. 5 in the affirmative. To surrimarise, our answers to the questions referred are as follows Question No. 1 answered in the affirmative. Question No. 2 answered in the negative. Question No. 3 answered in the affirmative. Question No. 4 answered in the affirmative. Question No. 5 answered in the affirmative. The assessee is entitled to his costs from the Commissioner. Upon the view that we have taken, it seems to us that the questions which have been framed and which we have answered above sufficiently cover the entire controversy between the assessee and the department. We do not think therefore that the questions which the assessee has asked for in the notice of motion need be framed or answered. There shall be no order on the notice of motion.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  State Bank of Indore collected the amount from the consignees on its own behalf and not as a collecting agent for the assessee - sale proceeds must be held to have been received by the assessee at Indore and not at the places in taxable territories where the bank received the amounts from the consignees - assessment of the profits u/s 4(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1922 not justfied

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether interest payable upon money borrowed for the purpose of paying death duties charged upon the estate of the testator, is deductible in computing the assessable income of the estate - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Net wealth - computation - Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 5(1)(viii) in respect of ornaments and jewellery intended for the personal use of the assessee - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure incurred by the assessee-family in connection with the installation of an air-conditioning plant in its newly built house - held that it is exempt under s. 5(e) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Transfer of assets - section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv).

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... surrender or disclaimer. In fact, it is clear that the real terms of the Bennet trusts will after the deed of assignment begin to operate only at the death of Dadabhoy. Upon the view that we have taken, it is clear that the Tribunal was in error in the view that it took in paragraph 4 of its order, particularly the very basis of that decision shown by the remark that they (the wife and children of Dadabhoy) derive their interest not by reason of the assignment or transfer but by reason of their own rights existing in the documents dated October 12, 1941, and November 13, 1941. We think we have said enough to show that in our opinion the interest which the wife and children took was not derived from the Bennet trusts but was derived directly by virtue of the provisions of the deed of assignment. There is a clear error of law in the reasoning of the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question referred in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the Commissioner.

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Claim of depreciation when the assets owned by one company and used by another company where other company using assets acting as sales manager - held that depreciation was allowable to the company who owned the machine

  ---

• 1967 (10) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - Whether the goodwill of the assessee`s business is an existing property within the meaning of section 2(xii) - held, yes

  ---

123