|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 34 Records
-
1967 (6) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one on whose death his share is deductible, does not arise. The court-fee which has to be deducted under section 50 is in respect of any property of the deceased upon which estate duty is leviable under the Act, and from that duty which is leviable, the amount which is equal to the court-fees so paid in respect of the share of the property of the deceased has to be deduct- ed. Thus, the word "leviable" is used in relation to that which is leviable, had there not been any provision for deduction. It is only after the various variations and deductions that are permissible that estate duty could be levied and till then it can only be described as leviable. We think that the provisions of section 50 do not admit of any doubt and the view taken by the estate duty authorities is clearly warranted. In this view, our answer to the question is in the affirmative and in favour of the department with costs. Advocate's fee ₹ 250. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1967 (6) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a candidate in a hotly contested election and had lost by a narrow margin. In any event, it is permissible to say that he should have been conscious of these provisions as he was intending to challenge the result of the election. He has told me in course of his arguments, although nothing is stated in the petition, that when his lawyer gave that advice, out of "decency" or "courtesy" he accepted the advice and decided on filing his petition on the 17th April, 1967. The explanation did not appeal to me at all. 30. For all the reasons aforesaid I am of opinion that "sufficient cause" has not been made out in this application for condonation of delay and the application, which the lawyer had withdrawn but the petitioner personally pressed, is dismissed. I also hold that the election petition herein is barred by limitation and as such it cannot be entertained by this Court. The election petition is also dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1967 (6) TMI 44 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts will be entitled to withdraw the said sum of ₹ 60,186.50 P. deposited by the Plaintiffs to the credit of this suit after payment of commission charges and other incidental costs, etc. The issues are, therefore, answered in the following way Issue No. 1 No. Issue No. 2 (a) Yes. (b) The Defendants are bound to do their parts in the contract. Issue No. 3 No. Issue No. 4 (a) No, but there was implied extension of time upto November 23, 1960. (b) November 23, 1960, is reasonable time. Issue No. 5 (a) Yes. (b) Yes. Issue No. 6 (a) Yes. (b) Yes. Issue No. 7 Yes. Issue No. 8 (a) No. (b) No. Issue No. 9 The Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale of premises No. 37/1, Hindusthan Road, Calcutta, as set out above upon relinquishment of their claims to get vacant possession of the premises and also to any claim for damages for non-delivery of such vacant possession. 20. The Defendants will pay to the Plaintiffs costs of this suits.
-
1967 (6) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e for the maximum period of 15 days provided in that section. All that he is required to do is to satisfy himself that a good case is made out for detaining the accused in police custody in connection with investigation of the case. It may be that the offences for which the accused is now wanted by the police relate to the same case but these are altogether different offences and in a way therefore it is quite legitimate to say that it is a different case in which the complicity of the accused has been discovered and the police in order to complete their investigation of that case require that the accused should be associated with that investigation in some way. I therefore accept the reference and direct that the learned Magistrate should order the accused to be brought to the Court and to allow the police to formally arrest him. The accused may then be handed over to the police custody for the maximum period of 15 days as provided in section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code.
-
1967 (6) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cumstances may show that an order, though not expressly passed, is impliedly passed. In fact, in State of Madras v. Ramulu Naidu(1), this is what this Court observed Where an officer at the time of making an assessment order was silent about the imposition of penalty, it must be taken that the assessing authority had applied its mind but did not think it necessary to levy a penalty. That would amount to an order which may fall well within the phrase an order passed in section 32(1). If there is an order passed within the meaning of the sub-section, then the sweep of the Deputy Commissioner s power in that sub-section appears to be very wide and may comprehend the power to revise the order so as to include a penalty where the assessing authority had failed to make it. On that view it is not necessary to examine the scope of section 31(1) or the other provisions of the Act. The petition fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... particles in the solution used in the process of electroplating and welding electrodes except that, in the latter case, instead of electrodes being in the form of particles, they are in the form of solid rods? These copper rods styled as electrodes are conductors of electricity and electricity is used for the purpose of heating up the pointed ends of the rods in the process of welding, so that in the very process the copper rods gradually disappear. We do not say that this phenomenon by itself entirely contributes to testing whether electrodes by themselves are electrical goods. What we have in mind is that electrodes are but copper rods which are melted by electrical power in welding. Looked at from that point of view, it seems to us that welding electrodes are not by themselves electrical goods. That is the view the Tribunal has taken and, in any case, we are unable to say that it is incorrect. The petition is dismissed with costs counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Here again it has been found as a fact that the assessees have entered in their accounts that these sales were effected as accommodation sales mentioning the names of the dealers from whom the supply was made to the assessees customers, and that they charged no profit. We have to read the definition of turnover and the scope of an accommodation sale as mentioned in sub-rule (c) of rule 6 in the light of the language employed. It is not permissible to import into the statute or the rule one s own ideas or notions of an accommodation sale. We find no indication in the statutory provision or the rule that the accommodation sales should be casual and that the supply of bread from the stock of another dealer should not be a regular affair. If that was the intention of the rule-making authority, it has not been expressed in rule 6(c). Nor did the Legislature make its intention clear in that respect. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... practised in those days. With the adoption of modern methods of processing and preservation like canning and quick-freezing, a new chapter has opened in the history of the Indian seafood Industry, about a decade ago. (page 20.) One very significant aspect of the developments during the last few years was the rapid expansion in the exports of frozen and canned seafoods in contrast with the decline in the exports of traditional items, like dried fish and dried prawns. (page 21.) 3.. There is nothing on record to show that the prawn pulp sold by the petitioner was anything else or other than prawns cured by sun-drying, the traditional method of preservation adopted on this coast. Prawns after drying are still prawns and should, therefore, come under the expression prawn in Notification No. HI-17041/57/ RD-1, dated 1st November, 1958, as held by the Appellate Tribunal in the order challenged before us. 4.. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or which exemption from tax is claimed, were to registered dealers. If that is the intention, the sub-rule Is innocuous. It cannot, in any sense, be read as mandatory. It should be understood only as one mode of proof of the fact that the second sales are to registered dealers. But the revenue cannot insist that the dealer is bound to produce declarations in Form C in order to qualify himself for exemption. All that the revenue can require the dealer to do is to prove that the second sales were to registered dealers and the proof may take any form, not necessarily declarations in Form C . While, therefore, we do not think that sub-rule (2) is invalid, the sub-rule understood as being merely directory, we make it clear that the revenue cannot rely on non-production of declara. tions in Form C and merely on that ground deny exemption to the dealer to which he is entitled by section 6(2). The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o give the relief to which the assessee is eligible under the law. The same view we find has been taken by the Mysore High Court in Shirahatti v. Commercial Tax Officer 1967 19 S.T.C. 306. We find, therefore, that the departmental authorities as also the Tribunal were in error in rejecting the E-I Forms on the ground that they were filed only before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. For the revenue it is pointed out that on the view taken by it and the Tribunal it was not examined whether the E-I Forms were in order. We wish, at least for the sake of saving time, it had been done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or at least by the Tribunal. Anyway we have to accede to the contention for the revenue that the E-I Forms have to be examined to see whether they were in order. The petition is allowed and the appeal is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in the light of this judgment. In the particular circumstances we make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rm C were defective inasmuch as they did not give the dates of registration of the out-of-State buyers. The assessee, who is the petitioner, sought to rectify the defect at the stage of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But he disallowed the appeal on the ground that the letters produced were belated and he had no power to condone the delay. The further appeal of the assessee failed on the same ground, the Tribunal relying on Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Parekutti Hajee Sons 1962 13 S.T.C. 680. and Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Manohar Brothers 1962 13 S.T.C. 686.On the view we have expressed in T.C. No. 8 of 1964, the Tribunal acted wrongly in dismissing the assessee s appeal on the only ground that the particulars to make up the defects in C Forms were filed belatedly. The petition is allowed and the appeal is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. We make no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ise the power only if the conditions for the exercise are not fulfilled or satisfied. Sub-rule (3) does not contemplate that unless the concerned assessee makes an application, the Commercial Tax Officer is at liberty to refuse to condone the delay, though the conditions therefor are satisfied. We are of opinion, therefore, that in so far as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Board proceeded upon the view that an application to exercise the power to condone delay was necessary, they were In error. It is the duty of the Commercial Tax Officer to condone the delay himself unless he thinks that the delay was with a mala fide intention or the assessee had not maintained true and correct accounts in relation to the particulars required in Form A-9. On that view the petition is allowed and the Board s order is set aside with a direction that it may dispose of the suo motu revision afresh in the light of this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1967 (6) TMI 34 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Director – Disclosure of interest by ... ... ... ... ..... l as requiring performance by the director of his part of it. If the company chooses not to enforce it, the contract is of no effect. The consequences are the same as if the contract were voidable by the company, and indeed I do not think there is more than a verbal difference between saying that the contract is unenforceable by the director and saying that it is voidable by the company. In this case, therefore, the two contracts were only voidable, and on the facts it is conceded that rescission became impossible and so Brayhead have lost their right to avoid the contracts. Therefore, the second main question also must be decided in favour of Lord Suirdale. On the further question relating to breach of warranty of authority, which would only arise if a different view be taken on the earlier question, I agree with what has been said and have nothing to add. I would dismiss the appeal. Solicitors Cartwright Cunningham, for T.W. Stuchbery and Son, Windsor Linklaters and Paines.
-
1967 (6) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Custody of company’s property, Powers of official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... amendment introduced in sub-sections (1A) and (1B) of section 456 of the Companies Act and at the same does not take away the ultimate right of this court as the liquidation court, to see that its order for possession under the winding up order is not nullified by any extraneous process or authority. I would, therefore, direct the official liquidator in ordinary and normal cases to follow the procedure prescribed in section 456(1A) of the Companies Act and in special and extraordinary cases with stated special reasons to come to this court for help and assistance. As there is no special ground made in this case why the liquidator should not go to the Magistrate under section 456(1A), I make no order on this application and direct the official liquidator to follow the procedure prescribed by statute in sub-section (1A) of section 456 of the Companies Act in the facts of this case. The official liquidator will retain the costs of this proceeding out of the assets in his hands.
-
1967 (6) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Confiscation of vehicle ... ... ... ... ..... er unless the owner of the goods or such person - (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral . One year period has now expired and no action has been taken against the vehicle. This is a point which the petitioner can take before the Collector of Customs. I think this aspect must be considered by the Collector and not by this Court. I therefore decline to go into the question. 10. In the result, I dismiss this writ application but there will be no order as to costs.
-
1967 (6) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act - sum paid as share of the net profits, to financiers in lieu of interest - allowability u/s 5(e)
-
1967 (6) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Proceedings u/s 34(1)(b) - assessment made pursuant to the proceedings - validity - loss on sale of shares - held that it arise from a share dealing business but was a loss on realisation of investment
-
1967 (6) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Amount was sought to be set off against certain unabsorbed speculative loss, brought forward from earlier years, on the theory that the amount of difference obtained from the Japanese company was a speculative profit - held that transaction did not fall within the meaning of speculative transaction as in Expln. 2 to the third proviso to s. 24(1) - so ITO rightly disallowed the claim
-
1967 (6) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Expenditure incurred by the assessees in collecting proxies from the shareholders cannot be regarded as expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning directors` fees - hence allowable as a deduction under s. 12(2)
-
1967 (6) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Notice issued u/s 34(1)(a) - limitation - ITO had no jurisdiction to issue a notice, being barred by limitation
|
