|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 113 Records
-
1974 (9) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Valuation - Civil Court's jurisdiction - Vegetable products ... ... ... ... ..... 54. It is significant that the new phraseology itself suggests that this provision like the former section was not intended to bar a remedy by way of a suit. Indeed, the sub-heading has been changed from Bar of suits to Protection of action under the Act. 55. The amendment is not only of a clarificatory nature but some further protection to the Government and its officers (who act in good faith and under the Act) is provided for, in the form of a previous notice in relation to the proposed prosecution or legal proceedings other than a suit and the period of limitation has been shortened. 56. It is, therefore, clear that Section 40 as it stood before the amendment and even as it stands now, does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil or Criminal Courts. 57. The contention of the Assistant Government Pleader that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, fails. 58. In the result the decree of the trial Court is a affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs throughout.
-
1974 (9) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... other relevant documents the assertion of the petitioner and to find out as to how for the claim for exemption is borne out from those materials. 11. In the result, C.W.J.C. No. 4 of 1971 is allowed and the order of the Central Government, dated the 7th September, 1970 (Annexure 7 ) is quashed. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to rely on the aforesaid notification, dated the 1st March, 1964, or any other notification or rule under which the petitioner may be entitled to claim exemption during the relevant period. There will be no order as to costs. 12. For the foregoing reasons, C.W.J.C. Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 of 1971 are also allowed, which relate to the months of July, June, March and April, 1967, respectively, and the orders of the Central Government (Annexure 7 to those applications) are quashed. In those cases also the Central Government will follow the directions given in respect of C.W.J.C. No. 4 of 1971. There will be no order as to costs in these cases also.
-
1974 (9) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Price List - Approval of - Excise duty - Refunds - Excise duty - Valuation - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... hree other judgments delivered by me today in matter No. 153 of 1973, Matter No. 111 of 1973 and Matter No. 158 of 1973 where Rules Nisi obtained by the petitioners on the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises Act have been discharged by me. 14. For all the reasons stated above the Rule is discharged subject to the following directions that the respondents will deal with the applications for refund pending before the Excise Officers in accordance with law. The petitioners application for assessment of duty on which final order has not yet been passed is directed to be determined by the Excise Officers on the basis of the assessment of wholesale cash price as set out in Section 4 of the said Act comprising manufacturing costs and manufacturing profits only and excluding post-manufacturing profits, if any. All interim orders stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to any other remedy permissible in law.
-
1974 (9) TMI 50 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Provisional Attachment, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... lter, he became incompetent to deal with any of his property by virtue of the operation of sub-rule (1) of rule 16 and this would disentitle any civil court from issuing process against the property which the defaulter became incompetent to deal with and that actual attachment of the property under rule 3 or otherwise was not necessary to attract the application of the bar provided in sub-rule (1) of rule 16 and, in that view of the matter, the proceedings in execution were incompetent. In the result, the petition succeeds. The orders of the executing court made on May 25, 1973, and June 1, 1973, are set aside and the execution application would be adjourned sine die subject to the right of the respondent to receive it after the notices under rule 2 have been complied with or cancelled. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, there would be no order for costs. The records of, the executing court may be transmitted to that court at an early date. Petition allowed.
-
1974 (9) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
A Partner, Estate Duty, Gift By Book Entries, Gift By Deceased ... ... ... ... ..... a mere actionable claim, then the gifts have to fail on the ground that the transfer has not been effected in accordance with section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not the case of the accountable person that section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act has been complied with in this case. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the sum of Rs. 60,000 out of Rs. 85,000 is liable to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act. The sum of Rs. 25,000 can also be included in the principal value of the estate under section 10 if the gifts amounting to Rs. 25,000 are found to be cash gifts. But it cannot be so included if the gifts are found to have been made in the form of book entries. The Tribunal will have to determine the factual question as regarding the sum of Rs. 25,000 in the consequential proceedings under section 64(6). The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1974 (9) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... levy of penalty for such defaults is the law as it stood at the time when the default is committed and not as it stood in the financial year for which the assessment is made as urged by the learned counsel for the assessee, nor as it stood on the date when the penalty proceedings were initiated or when the penalty order was imposed as urged by the revenue. In this case the last day for the filing of the gift-tax return was 30th June, 1962, and the assessee not having filed his return on that day has made himself liable for the levy of penalty. On that day it was the unamended provision in section 17 that was applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amended provision was not applicable to the assessee s case. The result is, the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative and against the revenue and it is answered accordingly. The revenue will pay the costs to the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... n returned to the petitioner for presentation to the Central Government. It is true the Central Board of Direct Taxes could well have transmitted the application to the appropriate authority for disposal though they might not be obliged to do so, which would have tended to the convenience of everybody, would have saved a lot of time and perhaps needless expenditure and unnecessary effort. As the application filed by the petitioner for relief under section 10(23) has not been disposed of by the appropriate authority, it is even now open to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to either return the application to the petitioner for presentation to the appropriate authority or to transmit the same to Central Government for exercising the powers under section 10(23) of the Act. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed, but the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter before the Central Government who will consider the application for exemption on merits. No costs.
-
1974 (9) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... nsidering the question whether it is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. The effect of the scheme is intended to endure for a long period of years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the payments made to private operators by the corporation in the manner provided under section 68G of the M. V. Act is an expenditure of a capital nature and, as such, not entitled to deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the reasons stated above, our answer to question No. 1 in all the references is that the compensation amount paid by the assessee under section 68G of the Motor Vehicles Act to private operators irrespective of the duration of the unexpired period of their permits, is not revenue expenditure entitled to deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We answer question No. 2 in I.T.R.C. 50 of 1972 in the affirmative and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs in these references. Advocate s fee, Rs. 250 one set.
-
1974 (9) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... ounsel is, therefore, not right in his submission that the provisions contained in Chapter 17-D cannot be resorted to for recovery of annuity deposits. Section 159 specifically states that where a person dies his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the deceased. It should be noted that the said section 159 deals with any sum payable by the deceased under the Income-tax Act which may include annuity deposits as well. It is not, therefore, open to the petitioner to say that he, as a legal representative, is not liable to pay the annuity deposit under section 159 once his plea that Chapter 22-A is a self-contained code has not been accepted. Thus, the second contention also fails. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed and the rule nisi is discharged. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1974 (9) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... e is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to consider and include the sum of Rs. 87,595 in the fresh assessment order made by him, he did not go into the question of inclusion on the merits, and that, therefore, the matter will have to be remanded to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for a fresh disposal on the merits. But that matter is not before us and the only question that was referred to we have answered. It might be that it is open to the assessee to raise this point before the Tribunal when the matter is dealt with under section 260. It will be equally open to the revenue to contend that such a question cannot be raised at this stage. We have no doubt that the Tribunal will deal with the matter according to law. The revenue will be entitled to its costs which we fix at Rs. 250.
-
1974 (9) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Enduring Nature, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... enue in this case, that it was for protection of the property. But what was the primary object and intention in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the background of the assessee s business and on the basis of the past record for incurrirng the expenditure ? If the predominant and the main purpose of incurring the expenditure was carrying on of the business, the incidental advantage of that expenditure, the property being secured more and thereby the assessee gaining advantage which is of some endurance, in our opinion, cannot affect its revenue character. Having regard, therefore, to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the principles applicable in this case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion. In the premises, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. PYNE J.--I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost ... ... ... ... ..... harge it to revenue account. The following observations appear pertinent They have to pay interest on that 10,000 l. during the period that construction is taking place. In my opinion that asset which they are so constructing cost them not only the 10,000 l., but the 10,000 l. plus the amount of interest during that period of construction and that is what they are out of pocket during the construction of that mile of line. Now, it seems to me that the company are entitled--I do not say that they are bound to do it--if they think fit to charge in their accounts as the cost of that mile of line not only the 10,000 l., but the 10,000 l. and the interest on it during the period of construction. We would answer the question referred in the affirmative, viz., in favour of the assessee, and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the cost of the reference. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 41 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... rth Rs. 5,00,000 and odd installed in the previous year relating to the assessment year 1959-60 by the other partnership-firm. Before finally answering the question, I think it advisable to reframe it in order to bring out clearly the point at issue. I, accordingly, reframe the question as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the order of the Tribunal allowing the unabsorbed development rebate in respect of the plant and machinery not installed by the assessee under section 33(1) of the Income-tax Act was legal and proper ? I would answer the reframed question in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. I, accordingly, hold that the order of the Tribunal on the fact and in the circumstances of the case allowing development rebate to the assessee under section 33(1) of the 1961 Act was not legal and proper. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100 only. S. K. JHA J.---I agree.
-
1974 (9) TMI 40 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Application For Registration ... ... ... ... ..... t, condoned the delay and consequently directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration. We think that Mr. Kaji was right because there was no scope for application of the aforesaid circular or any opportunity being given to the assessee under section 185(2). The application for registration was filed by the assessee and it was for the Tribunal to consider whether there were any justifying reasons which prevented the assessee to make an application within time and if, on appreciation of the facts and the evidence in that behalf, the Tribunal thought fit, it could have condoned the delay. The second question, therefore, requires to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. Before we part with this reference, we must put on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. K. C. Patel appointed as amicus curiae so that the other point of view may be placed before the court. Having regard to the facts of this case, there should be no order as to costs.
-
1974 (9) TMI 39 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Attachment And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... tional Commissioner has pointed out in the written statement that he was vested with the functions of the Commissioner and was authorised to hear the appeals. As regards the question as to whether the decisions of the Lahore High Court are of a binding nature it is unnecessary to go into that aspect as it does not directly arise here. Suffice it to say that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 acted improperly in rejecting the two decisions of the Lahore High Court off-hand in an unceremonious manner by merely saying that the Lahore High Court is located in foreign territory and its decisions are not binding on them, for the pre-partition decisions of the Lahore High Court are entitled to the greatest respect, more so the decisions flowing from the pen of such celebrated judges as Shadi Lal C. J. and Rattigan C.J. For the reasons stated, I find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. BAL RAJ TULI J.--I agree. MAN MOHAN SINGH GUJRAL J.--I agree.
-
1974 (9) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, In Part, Legal Representative, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... ership agreement provides that on death the partnership is to continue. Therefore, it cannot be successfully contended that the interest of the partner in the assets of the partnership including the goodwill of the firm is extinguished on his death. Therefore, the interest in the goodwill which the deceased possessed and could dispose of along with his entire interest in the firm at the time of his death came to devolve on the surviving partners and their share in the interest of the goodwill is augmented to the extent of the share of the deceased as per clause 14 of the partnership deed. This will straightaway attract section 5 of the Act. We have to, therefore, hold that there was in fact passing of property on the death of the deceased so as to attract section 5. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in favour of the revenue. The result is, both the questions referred are answered in favour of the revenue. The revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (9) TMI 37 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Commercial Profit, Distributable Surplus ... ... ... ... ..... sessments of its partners. Similarly, in Iyengar s Income-tax, sixth edition, volume I, at page 824, on the commentary under section 32(2) in caption carry forward of depreciation loss in a firm it has been observed Where the assessee is an unregistered firm, the carry forward of depreciation losses shall have to be against the profits of the unregistered firm. If the assessee be a registered firm or an unregistered firm treated as a registered firm, the carry forward shall have to be against the profits of the individual partners. In that view of the matter, therefore, we do not think that Mr. Shah s contention was well founded when he urged that, in view of two possible views, one favourable to the assessee should be preferred. In that view of the matter, therefore, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and against the assessee. The second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee shall pay costs of this reference to the revenue.
-
1974 (9) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Charitable Purpose, Cinema Business, Entertainment Tax, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... in so far as the order dated 27th April, 1974, rejected the objection of the petitioner because he had failed to comply with the terms imposed by the Tax Recovery Officer, they were clearly illegal. Rule 11(2) does not authorise the Tax Recovery Officer to reject the claim to an attached property on the ground that the terms to which he put the objector for postponing the auction have not been complied with. Under it he has to investigate the claim and decide it on the basis of the evidence adduced by the objector. The portions of the two orders mentioned above were without jurisdiction. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The portions of the order dated 6th April, 1974, debarring the objector from being heard and of the order dated 27th April, 1974, rejecting the objection are quashed. The Tax Recovery Officer is directed to proceed to decide the objection in accordance with law. In view of the divided success, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1974 (9) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... the context and setting of section 221, the authority contemplated could be no other than the Income-tax Officer. It should not be forgotten that it is the Income-tax Officer under section 210 who is empowered to require the assessee to pay advance tax on the basis of the previous year s assessment. It should, therefore, be deemed that he is the person competent to impose penalty also under section 221. We are, therefore, of the opinion that section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies to default in payment of advance tax. We are supported in our view by the following decisions Swastik Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax , D. C. Puliani v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Commissioner of Income-tax v. V. Venilal Dwarkadas Mehta , Smt. Kusum Kumari v. Union of India and E. K. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (9) TMI 34 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
From Other Sources, Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... ive argument urged on behalf of the revenue must be rejected since there was no money lent by the non-resident company to the assessee-company though the amount of the unpaid price was undoubtedly a liability which the assessee-company owed to the non-resident company. Since the alternative contention on behalf of the revenue is being rejected, we have not thought it proper to frame an additional question to cover that aspect. Under these circumstances it must be held that the amount payable by the assessee to Messrs. Ansaldo by way of interest on the unpaid purchase price so far as the amounts represented by the bills of exchange were concerned, was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as agent of the non-resident company under section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commssioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Question answered in the negative.
|
