|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 53 Records
-
1973 (10) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded in Notification No. ST-6438/X-1012-1962 dated 1st December, 1962, the High Court can take into consideration the change, which has been made with retrospective effect, by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971. It is now beyond doubt that section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971, has the effect of validating the notification dated 1st December, 1962, with retrospective effect. Accordingly, during the assessment year 1964-65 also, the turnover of sale of bricks at the point of sale by the manufacturer was taxable at the rate of 7 per cent. The question referred to us for opinion is, accordingly, answered as follows In view of the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971, the sale of bricks during the assessment year 1964-65 was to be taxed at 7 per cent and not at 2 per cent. Since no one has appeared for the respondents we make no order as to costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1973 (10) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
Winding up - Power of registrar to strike defunct company off register ... ... ... ... ..... together, the only meaning that can be attributed to the expression wound up is the meaning which is given to that expression in the Indian Companies Act. The provisions of section 179 are, therefore, limited only to those private companies against which proceedings for winding-up have been taken and have been wound up after the commencement of the 1961 Act. The expression wound up cannot be liberally interpreted so as to include also companies dissolved as having become defunct without being wound up . I, therefore, hold that the company in question was not wound up and the petitioner cannot be held liable under the provisions of section 179 of the Act. The action taken by the respondent for recovery of the tax due from the company was illegal and without the authority of law. In the result, this petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent to forbear from recovering the tax of Rs. 1,336 from the petitioner. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (10) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order - Revision - Export - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... loading of the goods for exportation. 3. Thus the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs passed on 8-9-1973 being a statutory order, the order can be revised or reviewed only in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act, and Mr. K. Parasaran, the learned counsel for the respondent, was not able to draw my attention to any provision contained in the Customs Act which enabled the Asstt. Collector of Customs to change his mind and to revise or review the order passed by him on 8-9-1973. On this sole ground, namely, the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs on 13-9-1973 is without jurisdiction, all the four writ petitions are allowed. In the former batch of writ petitions the order referred to above is quashed and in the latter two writ petitions a writ of mandamus will issue directing the respondent herein to allow the petitioners to export the consignment of goods referred to above. There will be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.
-
1973 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the finding that the appellant was in possession of the gold bars with foreign markings recovered from his shop and of indigenous gold recovered from his residential premises cannot be sustained?
Held that:- The shop from where the gold was got belongs to the accused's business and there is evidence for it. The bars themselves bear on their bosom evidence of smuggled source in the shape of foreign markings. The circumstances of the recovery not merely deepen the suspicion but clinch the conclusion. The guiltless pillows on which the appellant confidently sat, hid the offending gold and the pre knowing officers uncovered the contraband with a sure instinct and these facts over-power the case of licit possession feigned by the accused. The disingenuous explanation regarding the domestic discovery of gold also is hardly plausible. We affirm the findings of fact.
There is no manner of doubt that the accused was in control of the indigenous gold recovered from his residence and there is no case that a declaration has been made regarding it. That at least this domestic gold was subject to the declaration of Rule 126P(2)(ii) can be spelt out without straining language. Its possession is clearly an offence, as held by the courts below. The provision is plain that an authorised Customs official is entitled to examine any person at any time, at any place, in the course of an enquiry. Whether the statement was extracted by threat of harm, hope of advantage or improper inducement does not concern us as no such case is made out. Ex. 9 has been found by the High Court to be free from taint. We are not disposed to differ. Appeal dismissed.
-
1973 (10) TMI 29 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Aluminium rods - Erroneous refund - Show cause notice for recovery ... ... ... ... ..... it was submitted before the Appellate Collector that the demand should have been issued under Rule 10 but Rule 10A was mentioned in the demand, he observed that citing a wrong rule does not vitiate a show cause notice if it was otherwise in order. The refund was granted in this case on 9-3-1976 and the demand cum show cause notice was issued on 21-2-1977 i.e. within one year as prescribed under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. Government of India observe that the amount spelt out in the show cause notice was demanded as a result of refund granted earlier on a wrong interpretation of the relevant notification. Hence the demand for erroneous refund issued within the time limit i.e. one year, is correct in law. On merits also, the petitioners have no case as Notification No. 43/75 does not talk of exemption to bars and rods manufactured out of aluminium scrap. The Revision Application therefore, fails on both counts and is rejected accordingly.
-
1973 (10) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Burden Of Proof, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... d to show that the Income-tax Officer was aware of what was required of him? He sent a notice to the assessee which was a stereotyped notice...... Here...... it is a printed notice and the notice does not even show the specific charges which the assessee is supposed to meet. The Income-tax Officer, for instance, did not ask the assessee the basis on which the estimate of Rs. 47,000 was arrived at. If he had asked the assessee at any stage and the assessee had given a reply, then, perhaps, the case would have been different. But the Income-tax Officer did not ask the assessee how the estimate was filed ....... We agree with the Tribunal that the second question is hardly a question of law, particularly in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, and, so far as the first point of law is concerned, that is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. We, therefore, see no force in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (10) TMI 27 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Powers Of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... make any observation on the merits of the appeal which is yet to be decided by the Tribunal. In my opinion the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous that it has no such power. If the Tribunal had rejected the prayer for stay on merits the matter would have been different but from the order it appears that the prayer for stay made by the petitioner has been rejected simply on the ground that the Tribunal did not possess any such power under the statute. In that view of the matter, the said order has to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. In the result this application is allowed, the order dated 17th December, 1971 (annexure 5 to the writ application), is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to hear the application for stay of further proceedings before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on merits and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs. SARWAR ALI J.--I agree. Application allowed.
-
1973 (10) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Gains Tax, Gift Tax, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... assessment proceedings against another assessee even though the transaction giving rise to proceedings under the Gift-tax Act and the Income-tax Act, respectively, against the two assessees may be the same. The income-tax department was not a party in the Gift-tax Act proceedings. Any order passed therein will not be binding, per se, on the Income-tax Officer while he was making assessment against another assessee under the Income-tax Act. In our opinion, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could not have disposed of the appeal filed by the Income-tax Officer solely on the ground that, in the case of I. C. Gupta, the Gift-tax Officer had held that the transaction was one in which I. C. Gupta had made a gift to the extent of Rs. 20,587 to the assessee, H. C. Gupta. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax. As no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, we make no order as to costs. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (10) TMI 25 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
High Court, Question Of Law, Reference Application ... ... ... ... ..... 10 of the Estate Duty Act. It may be that the application of section 10 may be implied in the order of the Tribunal but it only relates to a gift which was not the question canvassed before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the second part of the question arises out of the order of the Tribunal. For the reason set out earlier, we decline to direct the Tribunal to refer the question No. 2 to this court. This question, in our opinion, is plainly not a question of law which arises in the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to refer the following question No. 1 for our answer under section 64(3) of the Act Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the share of goodwill of the deceased may be arrived at on the basis of two years purchase of super profits in the place of three years as fair and reasonable without assigning any reason ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (10) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Powers Of Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... shown to us that such an order is appealable. We are, therefore, of opinion that clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 33A of the Act was no bar to the entertainability of the revision and the Commissioner failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him bylaw. The Commissioner has also observed that the revision was belated. But he has not considered if the assessee was prevented from making an application in revision within the period allowed by law. It appears that because he was of opinion that the revision was not maintainable he did not go into the question. It is not for us here to decide whether circumstances justified condonation of delay or not. It will be for the Commissioner to decide if the revision can be entertained beyond one year of the date of the order. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, the order of the Commissioner dated 5th September, 1972, is set aside and he is directed to decide the revision in accordance with law.
-
1973 (10) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... st represented business income. We have already held that the sum of Rs. 49,086 is business income. If that be so, section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in terms will apply. That section is in these terms 80P. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely (a) in the case of a co-operative society engaged in--- (i) carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or ......... The sum of Rs. 49,086 should have been exempted as provided. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs as the question involved is a fairly complicated one on which there has been no clear ruling of this court. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (10) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Penalty Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... sh Trust v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, where the Allahabad High Court, having regard to the provisions in the trust deed, with which it was concerned, held qua certain income and the corpus of the trust estate where shares of beneficiaries were determinate and known, the asssessment should be made under either sub-section (1) or (2) of section 21, as the case may be, and qua the income of the corpus of the trust estate where the shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate and unknown, the assessment should be made under section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act. This decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding that it is only the capitalised value of the interest of the assessee that has to be included in the not wealth of the assessee is justified. The Commissioner will pay costs of this reference to the respondent-assessee.
-
1973 (10) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Female Member ... ... ... ... ..... nchandra Gautamkumar. This is the only conclusion which can be reached in the light of the legal position discussed above. It may be pointed out that in the course of this discussion, in order to answer the question referred to us, we had to examine the entire legal position regarding the different assessable entities and the share and rights of each of these different assessable entities so that the correct legal position regarding the rights and liabilities of the different members of this Hindu undivided family and those of Gautamkumar who released his rights as far back as 1956, can be correctly understood. So far as the question referred to us in this reference is concerned, we must answer it in the negative since we hold that no valid partition was effected between Kalavati, the mother, and minor son, Bhadrakumar. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (10) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest Income, Interest Paid By Firm ... ... ... ... ..... e option to return the loan if he so chooses. Same is the position in the case of a deposit. The depositee must have an option either to accept the deposit or to return the same if the monies are no longer required by him. But the clause in the partnership deed under which interest has been paid does not give any such option to the firm to return the credit balances and stop payment of interest. The clause imposes an obligation on the firm to retain the moneys and pay interest thereon, whether the moneys are required for the business of the firm or not. Therefore, the retention of the moneys of the wife and the minors by the firm and payment of interest thereon was only in view of their connection with the firm. We are, therefore, of the view that in this case the interest income in question is includible in the total income of the assessee. In this view, all the three questions have to be answered against the assessee. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (10) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... no evidence in the case that the firm was in the habit of taking loans or deposits from outsiders at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent. interest which is the rate of interest that was paid to the minors. Under section 13(d) of the Partnership Act a partner making for the purpose of the business any payment or advance beyond the amount of capital he has agreed to subscribe is entitled to interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum. It cannot, therefore, be said that the minors have a right under the common law to receive the interest at 7 1/2 per cent. on the amounts in their credit and, therefore, the payment of interest at 7 1/2 per cent. can only be taken to have been made to the minors by virtue of their having been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. We have to, therefore, disagree with the decision of the Tribunal on this point. This question is also answered in the negative and against the assessee. The revenue will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1973 (10) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1961 Act, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... instant case, there cannot be said to be a mistake, much less a mistake apparent from the record. In my opinion, in view of S. Sankappa s case 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC), in the first place there was no mistake when the Tribunal passed the order of March 5, 1970, much less was there a mistake apparent from the record. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the Tribunal was in error when it held that there was a mistake apparent from the record and thereafter proceeded by its order of 26th August, 1970, to rectify the order of March 5, 1970. We, therefore, allow the special civil application and quash and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on August 26, 1970, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure B to the petition. The result of setting aside the order of August 26, 1970, is that the order of March 5, 1970, is automatically restored. Rule is, therefore, made absolute. The second respondent will pay the costs of this special civil application to the petitioner.
-
1973 (10) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Deemed Gift, Fair Market Value, Gift Tax Act, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... he jurisdictional fact was properly decided by the Income-tax Officer. Even otherwise, as stated above, the Income-tax Officer rightly came to the conclusion under section 52 and since the petitioner himself surrendered to the qualified jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer and bargained for the order of assessment and thereafter kept quiet for considerably a long time without adopting the statutory remedies, he cannot now be permitted to turn round and question its validity. For the reasons stated above, we find it difficult to agree with the contention of the learned judge that the Gift-tax Act and the Income-tax Act have to be read jointly and the word gift to be understood in the manner in which the learned judge has understood. No other argument was advanced before us. We find no merits in the writ petition. We would, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned judge and dismiss the writ petition with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 in each court.
-
1973 (10) TMI 16 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Fact, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... e enhancement notice of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee made a specific request for the production of the creditors for his examination. Such a reasonable request was not acceded to. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was almost based on the confessional statements ...... The conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal in this case seems to have been reached on a consideration of the totality of the evidence placed on the record. Undoubtedly, it was open to the Appellate Tribunal to form an opinion that the explanation offered by the assessee was satisfactory in regard to the nature and source of the cash credits and as we are of the view that the Tribunal has, on an assessment of the entire material formed its opinion in the matter, the finding is one of fact and there is no question of law arising out of the appellate decision. In the circumstances, both the applications must stand rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. PANDA J.---I agree.
-
1973 (10) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its conclusion that the partnership deed dated November 15, 1961, admitted the minors to the benefits of partnership and they were not full-fledged partners ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " - we answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the department. We answer the second question also in the negative and in favour of the department.
-
1973 (10) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Unexpected receipt found after furnishing of estimate of income by assessee - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,500 on the assessee under section 18A(9) read with section 28(1)(c) of the Act was valid in law? " - Held that levy of penalty of Rs. 2,500 on the assessee under section 18A(9) read with section 28(1)(c) of the Act was not valid in law.
|
