Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 44 Records
-
1967 (5) TMI 61
SALE OR WORKS CONTRACT — COMPOSITE CONTRACT FOR DESIGNING THE FABRICATION, SUPPLY AND ERECTION AT CUSTOMER'S SITE OF STEELWORK FOR CUSTOMER'S FACTORY — WHETHER WORKS CONTRACT OR CONTRACT FOR SALE OF SPECIFIC GOODS
-
1967 (5) TMI 58
Whether there was works contract in this case?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the present case the assessee does not manufacture or fabricate Perkins Engines. The learned Advocate-General brought to notice a sample of the bills made out by the assessee which evidences an agreement to sell a particular diesel engine, the price of which is separately mentioned in the bill, and to fit it in the customer's Dodge bus. In other words, this engine was contracted to be delivered as an engine and afterwards affixed to the customer's Dodge bus.
Thus the Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that there was no works contract in this case. Judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order of the Appellate Tribunal restored.
-
1967 (5) TMI 55
Whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the sales made by the assessee were assessable to tax under section 2(h), Explanation II(ii) of the U.P. Sale Tax Act, 1948?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The word "manufacture" has various shades of meaning, and in the context of sales tax legislation, if the goods to which some labour is applied remain essentially the same commercial article, it cannot be said that the final product is the result of manufacture.
-
1967 (5) TMI 43
Whether the order of distraint dated November 20, 1958, made by the Collector of Aurangabad is legally valid - Held that:- The procedure followed by the Collector is justified by the provisions of section 119 and there is nothing in the language or context of the section which prohibits the Collector from making an order of distraint with regard to the movable property in the custody and possession of a Court. We accordingly reject the argument of respondent No. 1 on this aspect of the case.
Whether the debt due to the Government in respect of arrears of sales tax has priority over the dues of respondent No. 1. ? - Held that:- Section 144 enumerates the nature of taxes in respect of which the provision under the Land Revenue Act could be adopted for recovery. But the language of section 104 makes it clear that the priority specified in that section applies only in respect of land revenue and not in respect of other taxes. In respect of other taxes, we consider that only the procedure for recovery under section 116 applies and not the substantive law of priority under section 104 of the Land Revenue Act. In our opinion, counsel for the appellants has not been able to make good his argument on this aspect of the case.
Whether the appellants are entitled to claim priority towards payment of sales tax according to the common law doctrine of "priority of Crown debts" quite apart from the provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act? - Held that:- Unable to apply the English common law doctrine of priority of Crown debts in this case, because there is no proof that the doctrine was given judicial recognition in the territory of Hyderabad State prior to January 26, 1950, when the Constitution was brought into force. We granted time to counsel for the appellants to ascertain whether there were any reported decisions recognising such a doctrine in the Hyderabad State, but sufficient material has not been placed before us in this case to show that the doctrine was given judicial recognition in the Hyderabad State before its incorporation into the Indian Republic.
-
1967 (5) TMI 28
Government company ... ... ... ... ..... wner of the company. At the present moment, however, regard being had to the state of the authorities, I am of the opinion that, as pointed out in Tamlin s case (supra) the court was not entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and to examine the reality underneath. That in my view would be a matter of legislation and not of judicial interpretation. As at present advised, I must hold that a joint stock company is like a private individual except in some restricted cases, namely when the company is a public utility company, and its employees are not civil servants and are not entitled to the protection offered by article 311 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases a writ application under article 226 of the Constitution does not lie for the purposes of protecting service conditions. That being so, the learned judge in the court below rightly rejected the application and the appeal is dismissed, but no order is made as to costs. Arun K. Mukherjea, J. mdash I agree.
-
1967 (5) TMI 19
Smuggling - Conspiracy - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ch can be called into service for the purpose of framing a charge of conspiracy that has been framed against the accused persons in the case. In the absence of such independent evidence, the testimony of the co-accused cannot be pressed into service for the purpose for which it appears to have been utilized by the learned magistrate. The makers of the statements before the customs officers are accused in the case. Any incriminating statement made by them might be utilized so far as the makers thereof are concerned, but as against the other co-accused in the case standing by themselves they have hardly any evidentiary value. In this view of the matter, I hold that there is no legal evidence on record to warrant the charge that has been framed against the present petitioner. 6. The rule, accordingly, is made absolute. The charge framed against the petitioner as well as the proceeding pending against him are both quashed. 7. The records be sent down as expeditiously as possible.
-
1967 (5) TMI 18
Whether the appellants continued to be liable to be proceeded against under section 15 of the Act on the profits which had escaped taxation?
Held that:- The appeal must be dismissed on the ground that the Act stood repeated by reason of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, and the liability to pay tax on escaped profits continued under section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
-
1967 (5) TMI 17
An assessment order was passed u/s 23(4) on the footing that the firm had failed to comply with the notice u/s 22(4) - a notice of demand was also issued on that basis - held that no notice could be served upon the respondent u/s 22(4) of the Act - Since the notice itself was invalid, assessment was also invalid
-
1967 (5) TMI 16
Assessee, Bengal River Service Company Limited, was, at the material time, carrying on the business of plying of river boats - Whether the amount received by the assessee was derived from a source or category of transaction mentioned in item 5(g) of the Schedule to the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of Income between India and Pakistan - Held, yes
-
1967 (5) TMI 15
Carry forward and set off - business profits - same business ... ... ... ... ..... ying on. In that view of the matter we are satisfied that the Income-tax Officer was right in deducting a sum of Rs. 36,266, the profits in the speculation business in the year 1948-49, from Rs. 57,980, the loss in the milling business. For this reason the Income-tax Officer was right in showing the loss in the year 1948-49 at the figure of Rs. 21,714. In our judgment, the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were right in affirming the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. For the reasons mentioned above, we answer the question referred to us by saying that the assessee is not entitled to deduct the entire loss from the milling business of Rs. 57,910 relating to the year 1958-59 from the profits of the same business but only the loss as reduced by the speculation profits of 1948-49. The assessee shall pay to the department the costs of these proceedings which we assess at Rs. 200. We fix the fee of the learned counsel for the department at the same figure.
-
1967 (5) TMI 14
Determining the net wealth - valuation - deduction in respect of provision for bonus for each of the three years & provision for taxation is permissible - but deduction in respect of bad debts and liability for sales tax is not permissible
-
1967 (5) TMI 13
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to estimate an addition on sales of disposal goods - Held, no
-
1967 (5) TMI 12
Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that although the question presented before it was no doubt a question of law - Tribunal was not right in rejecting reference application on question of applicability of s. 23A of 1922 Act - Revenue's appeal is allowed
-
1967 (5) TMI 11
Findings of fact can not be interfered by the High Court - High Court should confine itself solely to the facts found and proceed to apply the principle of law in the background and setting of the facts found by the Tribunal - Appeal of revenue is allowed in part. Case remanded.
-
1967 (5) TMI 10
Assessee`s contention that she was denied opportunity of showing cause against the grounds and materials on which the Commissioner proceeded for the purpose of taking action under s. 33B - assessee will have full opportunity of showing to the ITO whether he had jurisdiction or not and whether the income assessed in the assessment orders which were originally passed was correct or not. Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1967 (5) TMI 9
Tribunal was justified in holding that the impugned transactions constitute speculative transactions in the nature of a business within the meaning of the first proviso to s. 24(1) - but losses are not deductible under s. 10 as business losses of the two asst. yrs. 1953-54 and 1954-55
-
1967 (5) TMI 8
Tribunal was right in holding that the income of Jayantilal Amratlal Charitable Trust was not assessable in the hands of the settler under the first proviso to section 16(1)(c) - Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the trust should be considered in the assessment of the trustees and that they were entitled to the benefits of the refunds attached to the dividends from the trust properties - revenue appeal dismissed
-
1967 (5) TMI 7
ITO held that out of the consideration of Rs. 74,000, Rs. 4,000 should be allocated to the workshop assets and the balance of Rs. 70,000 be taken into account under s. 10(2)(vii), proviso two, of the IT Act, 1922, as profit of the service - held that sum of Rs. 45,698 is not assessable to tax under the provisions of the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii)
-
1967 (5) TMI 6
AO rejected the books of account maintained by the assessees and made several additions to the profits disclosed by them and brought the profits so computed to income-tax and excess profits tax - Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 19,796 in the assessment
-
1967 (5) TMI 5
Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefit contained under s. 25(3) in respect of capital gains assessed to tax under s. 12B - held that it is only income which is earned by carrying on business which is entitled to exemption under section 25(3) and capital gains not being income which arise from trading activity, they are not entitled to exemption
|