|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 158 Records
-
1980 (12) TMI 164 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to the benefit of the concessional rate of taxation at 1 per cent in respect of the turnover relating to sales of naphtha effected by it to M/s. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. The revision petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment in this case, the learned Government Pleader made an oral request under article 134-A of the Constitution for the grant of a certificate under article 133(1) to enable the State to prefer appeals before the Supreme Court. We are not, however, inclined to accede to the said request since the first question is already covered by a direct pronouncement of the Supreme Court, to which we have made reference in the judgment, and the second question cannot be said to be a substantial question of law, on which a pronouncement of the Supreme Court is needed. Accordingly, the request for grant of a certificate is declined. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quently the fact that the assessee did not file an appeal in time before the Appellate Tribunal could not be made a ground for declining to exercise the revisional powers under section 34. Otherwise the ratio that the fact that an appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation will not bar the exercise of revisional powers under section 34 will have no meaning. The impugned order of the Board of Revenue clearly shows that though the Commissioner has realised the fact that the dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation would not bar his powers, he had declined to interfere on the ground of laches on the part of the assessee in going before the Tribunal. The order is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained, with the result, his order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes for fresh disposal according to law. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 162 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... upheld. I am inclined to take the same view in the present case because when M.S. tubes and tabular sheds are not covered by section 14(iv) of the Central Act, they could not be treated as declared goods liable to tax at 3 per cent. The sales thereof were taxable at a higher rate and certainly it was a case where there had been escapement of assessment to tax because of the application of a rate lower than that at which the disputed turnover was assessable under the Act. In my opinion, therefore, the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) is erronous in law and cannot be sustained. The action under section 21 had been validly taken in regard to the turnover of M.S. tubes and tabular sheds. The revision, hence, succeeds and is allowed in part and the order of the Sales Tax Officer in so far as the levy of tax on sales of M.S. tubes and tabular sheds is concerned is restored. The Commissioner is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Petition Partly allowed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 161 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lectricity fails. They just stop working and they are of no utility at all. In the case of neon signs, which we have to consider, no doubt one of the principal objects of making a sign with gas inside is that it should be lit up at night. If there is no electricity, part of the utility will go. But it still remains to be explained why the utility remains during the daytime when the sign can easily be seen when the name of the shop or the office or the article advertised is visible to all. This means that the signs in question are not purely electrical goods and, accordingly, we have to hold that the Financial Commissioner was not wrong in so holding. In view of this analysis, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that the signs are not covered by the term electrical goods . The answer is in favour of the dealer and against the department. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs in all the three cases. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1980 (12) TMI 160 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... S.C.). which distinguish the earlier ruling in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1967 19 S.T.C. 1 (S.C.). As the matter has been elaborately discussed in the Project Automobiles case(5), it is not necessary 1971 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). for us to cover the ground over again. It is not disputed that the car, jeep and trucks were purchased by the assessee for its business. The sales of these vehicles after they ceased to be useful are necessarily sales incidental to the business of the assessee. Applying the ruling in the Project Automobiles case(1), we hold that the sales of these vehicles were taxable. 13.. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows (1) The assessee was not liable for sales tax in respect of the estimated value of gunny bags used as packing material of sugar sold by it. (2) The assessee was liable to pay sales tax on the sales of trucks, jeep and car. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 159 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1972 29 S.T.C. 383 1972 M.P.L.J. 213. In that case a Division Bench of this Court held that the terms tandurwala and dhabawala could not be applied to an establishment which maintains waiters, etc., and sells large quantities of sweets and namkins . On the facts and in the circumstances of that case it was held that the benefit of the aforesaid notification could not be given to the assessee in that case. The decision in Purohit Lodge v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. 1972 29 S.T.C. 383 1972 M.P.L.J. 213., is therefore distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, as found by the Board the assessee supplied katcha bhojan to its customers in thalis and the sitting arrangement was mainly Indian. 5.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this Court is in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1980 (12) TMI 158 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... electrical undertaking registered under the said Act and supplying the electrical energy to the public under a licence or sanction granted or deemed to have been granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, against a declaration in writing in the appended form that the goods sold are purchased for use by it in the distribution of such energy for sale. In the instant case, the declaration was furnished on behalf of the M.P. Electricity Board that the Electricity Board had purchased paints from the petitioner for use in the distribution of electrical energy for sale. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue has not found that the declaration made by the M.P. Electricity Board was false or that there was any collusion between the assessee and the M.P. Electricity Board. In these circumstances, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and against the department. 4.. Reference answered accordingly. No order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 157 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... J.-For the assessment year 1973-74 the account books of the assessee, a dealer in loud-speakers, amplifiers and parts, were rejected and the turnover was determined to the best of judgment. In revision the order was maintained because the assessee did not maintain any manufacturing account. When revision against this order came up for hearing the learned standing counsel relied on certain decisions of this Court where it was held that provision of section 12(2) requiring an assessee to maintain manufacturing account added since 1973 was mandatory. As difficulty was felt in following these decisions, matter was referred to a larger Bench. The Division Bench by its order dated 9th December, 1980, has held that the provision is mandatory. The result is that the revising authority cannot be said to have committed an error in rejecting the account books for nonmaintenance of manufacturing account. In the result this revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s been claimed. The remaining demand for the whole year is not being claimed from the present petitioner, Shri Suraj Mal. The answer to the first question has, therefore, to be in the negative it is in the negative because the liability of the transferor has not ceased by reason of his own statement. As far as the second question is concerned, there is no doubt that notices were issued to S.A. Ghani only which is in accord with section 17. However, this does not affect the liability of the petitioner by reason of the provisions of section 17 read with his own statement and the terms of the dissolution deed. The petitioner is only liable for the demand relating to the period during which he was a partner and not for the subsequent period. The demand has been properly raised to the extent of Rs. 6,164.25 against the petitioner. This question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. We would, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Certain perosns not to be appointed as managing director, Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... He will try to expedite the allotment and division and collection of the debts due to the said company and payment of the liabilities of the respondent-company as aforesaid and the parties particularly the said ex-managing directors are directed to co-operate and assist the Special Officer to give effect to the said order and comply with the same, if possible, within a period of three months. The Special Officer, the said respondents Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7, the bankers of the company, United Industrial Bank Ltd. at No. 7, Red Cross Place, Calcutta, Chartered Bank at No. 54, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, United Bank of India, College Street Branch, Calcutta, and Grindlays Bank Ltd. at No. 19, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, and the said paper suppliers, Titagur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., India Paper Pulp Co. Ltd., Bengal Paper Mills Ltd., Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd., and all parties to this proceeding to act on a signed copy of the minute. Liberty to apply.
-
1980 (12) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Offences against the act to be cognizable only on complaints by registrar, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... provisions of section 621 is quite competent to file a written complaint on which the Magistrate may take cognizance. This being the position, Mr. Ghosh submits that the Registrar of Companies, as also an Asst. Registrar of Companies must be considered as a person aggrieved and as such was entitled to take advantage of the provisions of section 469(1)(b) of the Act. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties at length we are unable to rely on the Madras decision referred to by Mr. Roy. We find no reason to differ from the Bench decision of this court, and hold that an Asst. Registrar of Companies must be considered as the person aggrieved by the offence and he is entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of section 469(1)(b) of the Code. In the result, the application fail and the rules are discharged. The learned Magistrates are directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Let the records go down immediately. Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. mdash I agree
-
1980 (12) TMI 153 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... tive date of amalgamation, would be January 1, 1980. 11.Possession of the factory has already been ordered to be delivered by the Receiver appointed by this court to the management of the amalgamated company, subject to the undertaking with regard to further instruments and deeds to be executed by the amalgamated company in favour of the financial institutions. The receiver would deliver possession of the remaining assets and property of the company to the management of the amalgamated company, subject to the aforesaid undertaking. 12.Liberty to the transferee-company and the unsecured creditors to negotiate for a settlement for the conversion of the entitlement under the scheme into interest bearing deposits in the amalgamated company on such terms as may be agreed upon between them, jointly or severally. 13.Appropriate directions would be made in CM. (Main) IFC-56/77 and C.P. No. 90/76 with regard to their disposal. 14.The transferor-company is dissolved without winding-up.
-
1980 (12) TMI 135 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... s been held after March 26, 1977. As the annual general meeting was not held and the annual return as required under section 159 of the Companies Act was not furnished, the Registrar of Companies issued notices to comply with the statutory requirements, but there was no response. The industrial licence issued to the company by the Ministry of Steel and Mines has been cancelled since the company failed to implement the project. The company has not entered appearance to oppose the winding-up petition which was duly advertised. The averments made in the petition are not disputed. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances and the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner, I am satisfied that it is a fit case in which the company should be wound up. In the result, the petition is allowed without any order as to costs. The company is directed to be wound up. Copies of this order be forwarded to the official liquidator and the Registrar of Companies in accordance with law.
-
1980 (12) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Board’s report ... ... ... ... ..... applicable even to non-insurance companies, a Division Bench, without going into the Explanation, simply purported to apply the principle in the decision in India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. v. CIT 1981 130 1TR 611 . We are of the opinion that the construction of the relevant provision in rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act is not dependent upon whether the company is an insurance company or not, because there is nothing in that particular rule which is exclusively applicable cither to an insurance company or to a non-insurance company. Further, a perusal of the Act does not show that there is any Explanation as Explanation II to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act and the same may be a typographical error. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee. The respondent-Commissioner is entitled to his costs of this reference and the counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand only).
-
1980 (12) TMI 125 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondent having regard to the mutual dealings he had with the company is entitled to the benefit of section 46 of the Insolvency Act ?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is true that section 530 provides for preferential payments, but that provision cannot in any way detract from full effect being given to section 529 and in fact the only way in which these two sections can be reconciled is by reading them together so as to provide that whenever any creditor seeks to prove his debt against the company in liquidation, the rule enacted in section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act should apply and only that amount which is ultimately found due from him at the foot of the account in respect of mutual dealings should be recoverable from him and not that the amount due from him should be recovered fully while the amount due to him from the company in liquidation should rank in payment after the preferential claims provided under section 530. We find that the same view has been taken by the English courts on the interpretation of the corresponding provisions of the English Companies Act, 1948, and since our Companies Act is modelled largely on the English Companies Act, 1948, we do not see any reason why we should take a different view, particularly when that view appears to be fair and just.
-
1980 (12) TMI 110 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... Therefore, the ITO, in our opinion, had no jurisdiction to amend the figure of opening stock under s. 154 after estimating the trading additions or after estimating gross profit by having recourse to the proviso to s. 145(1) in the manner prescribed above. The ITO should have requested the AAC to look into the matter. However, as far as the present appeal goes, the matter was entirely outside the jurisdiction of the ITO under s. 154 having regard to the subject matter of s. 154 as it was passed. It is, therefore, not really necessary to refer any of the decided cases relied upon by the parties in the course of their arguments. In our opinion, the issues is clear and the ITO had no jurisdiction to modify the figure of the opening stock which went to augment the gross profit which was already estimated by him under the proviso to s. 145(1). Therefore, the order under s. 154 suffers from a grievous infirmity and we hereby strike it down. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... s notional partition on the death of a Hindu leaving coparcenary property under the Hindu Succession Act. But the fact remains that there had been physically no such partition. WT Act like IT Act is not content with mere legal partition or in other words a partition recognised by law. Sec. 20 contemplates that there should be a partition by metes and bounds. Such a partition has not taken place. The ld. Deptl. Rep. may or may not be right in his contention that a separate order u/s 20 is not necessary in respect of statutory partitions under Hindu Succession Act. However, it can not be disputed that s. 20 implies a principle that the Direct Tax Laws recognise only partitions in definite portions . There has admittedly been no such partition. The authorities have also apparently taken such a view in the assessments of the family. We do not, therefore, consider it open to the WTO to take a different view in the hands of the appellants. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 105 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... e facts of each case should be gone into to determine whether it is actually a reimbursement of expenses so as to assure a higher tax benefit. If it is merely a reimbursement of actual expenses incurred in the performance of his duties, the standard deduction would not be restricted to Rs. 1,000 for this reason and the employee will be entitled to the deduction as prescribed in s. 16(1) of the IT Act, 1961 . Under cl. (i) of the proviso to s. 16(1) the deduction under s. 16 (1) is to be restricted to Rs. 1,000 only where the assessee in receipt of conveyance allowance from his employer. On the facts found we are of the view that the assessee was not in receipt of any conveyance allowance from his employer. Hence the assessee is entitled to full deduction. Our above view is also supported by the decision dt. 30th July, 1977 of the Madras Bench-c of Tribunal in ITA No. 1613 (Mds) 1976-77 in the case of Sri O. Kallappa, Madras. In the result, the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... , it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the total expenditure including that of common account was Rs. 10,916 whereas the expenses allowed in 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 was Rs. 12,550. Similarly under Road repairs, it is pointed out that the total expenditure for the earlier year was Rs. 20,936 whereas the expenditure allowed in 1976-77 and 1977-78 was more than Rs. 30,000. Having regard to this fact we hold that expenses under fencing (Rs. 1,975) and Road repairs (Rs. 4,535) be allowed as a deduction. As regards medical expenses (Rs. 3807) the assessing officer has disallowed on the ground that no evidence was produced. Before us also, no further evidence has been placed. Regarding interest, no evidence has been brought into bring it under s. 5(e). Regarding other small disallowance no evidence has been placed before us to warrant further relief. 25. In the result the appeals are partly allowed. 50 per cent of the Institution fee shall be refunded in all appeals.
-
1980 (12) TMI 102 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... held to be exempt under the Central Act for a particular year then no assessment is possible under the State Act in respect of agricultural income of that year (b) If the non-agricultural income is found to be exempt in part under the Central Act, then the agricultural income will also be exempt to the same extent i.e., in the same proportion and (c) In the absence of any rule or prescribed forms or procedure under the Tamilnadu Agrl. IT Act regarding filing of applications for accumulations, application, etc. there can be no question of the trusts filing applications before the Agrl. IT Authorities and hence denying exemption for non-compliance of a non-existent rule is not warranted. In the view we have already taken, the assessments are set aside and remanded back to the Agrl. ITO for fresh disposal and direct the Agrl. ITO to proceed with them if necessary in accordance with the interpretations and observations extracted above. Institution fees shall be refunded in full.
........
|
