Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1965 1965 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 30 of 30 Records

• 1965 (5) TMI 31 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dealers whose taxable quantum is fixed at Rs. 30,000. The tax is attracted only if in the first class of cases taxable quantum with respect to goods imported, manufactured or produced exceeds Rs. 10,000. That, to our mind, appears to be the plain construction of the section. Mr. Shankar seeks to distinguish the Nagpur decision on the ground that the word gross in sub-section (1) of section 4 does not appear in the corresponding provision in the Nagpur Act. That, in our view, makes no difference. Taxable quantum having been defined the definition has to be incorporated in sub-section (1) of section 4. When so incorporated the presence of the word gross in the earlier part of this section will make no difference. In this view our answer to the question referred is that the taxable turnover in this case had to be determined under clause (c) of sub-section (5) of section 4. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. GROVER, J.-I agree. Ordered accordingly

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 30 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t was to be treated as a contract wherein fabricated units were to be affixed into the building of another the case would appear to be of the nature of Carl Still s case 1961 12 S.T.C. 499. and Voltas case 1963 14 S.T.C. 446. The price payable was not for units as such but the contract included within its compass the engineering skill to be employed in fabrication and fixation of these units for an all inclusive price. It was, therefore, an indivisible contract not liable to sales tax. For all these reasons our answer to the question, therefore, is that on the proper interpretation of the contract between the applicant and the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Ajmer, regarding the providing and fixing of the steel windows to the Accountant-General s Office is an indivisible contract of work and not of sale. It is not liable to sales tax. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs for this reference. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mplishment of some result. The activity contemplated by the word process is general, requiring only continuous and regular action or succession of actions leading to the accomplishment of some result but it is not one of the requisites that the activity should involve some operation on some material in order to its conversion to some other stuff. In my opinion, the word process used in section 2(b) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, has been used in the general sense. In this general sense also the word process was interpreted by this Court in the case of Khodabux v. Manager, Caledonian PressA.I.R. 1954 Cal. 484. That being the view, by converting camphor powder into camphor cubes the petitioner processed camphor powder into camphor cubes and fell within the definition of dealer in the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. All the arguments in support of the Rule made by Mr. Sen Gupta, therefore, fail and I discharge this Rule. But I make no order for costs. Rule discharged.

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator and Payment of debts due by contributory and extent of set off

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Winding up – Settlement of list of contributories and application of assets

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 2 and 4 on respondent No. 1 and for that reason the necessary evidence was not led by the official liquidator but that while deciding the case the learned judge has dealt with the case as if the burden of proof was on the official liquidator. There is a good deal of force in this submission as also in what has been pointed out further by the counsel for the official liquidator that the learned judge did not give findings on all the issues which it was necessary to do in order to decide the entire controversy between the parties. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single judge is set aside. The case shall now go back to a learned single judge for a fresh decision after re-casting the issues, if necessary, and after allowing the parties to lead such fresh evidence as may be desired to be produced in order to completely dispose of all the points in issue between the parties. The costs of the appeal shall abide the event. Dulat J. mdash I agree.

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 18 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
  

  Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Oppression and Mismanagement

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ession. Indeed, I find some difficulty in understanding how his complaint in regard to Stanwells fits into section 210 at all. The acquisition by Cyril Lundie and by Mrs. Reginald Lundie had nothing to do with the management of the company s affairs. If the suggestion is that in some way or other Cyril Lundie has wronged the company by purchasing these shares on his own account or jointly with Mrs. Reginald Lundie and if it is suggested that in some way he has wronged the company by acting in the management of Stanwells, then the remedy is an action against him by the company. In any case, I am not satisfied that the petitioner s shareholding in the company has in any way been depreciated by what was done in regard to Stanwells. In the result, the petitioner, in my judgment, has failed to make out a case for relief under section 210, although he has succeeded in making out a case for winding up under section 222. In those circumstances, I must make the usual winding-up order.

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether there was nothing to show that the Income-tax Officer had purported to exercise his discretion when he passed the order of assessment and did not impose any liability for payment of interest under section 18A(6)?

  Held that:- It is unfortunate that the Commissioner in considering the matter under section 33A assumed that the amending Act 25 of 1953 had no retrospective operation and rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that at the date when the order of assessment was made, Act 25 of 1953 had not come into operation, and that the Act became effective as from December 1953, when the rules were framed. In so holding, the Commissioner committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The High Court was therefore right in setting aside the order which was passed by the Commissioner without considering the proviso to section 18A(6) which was clearly applicable to the case of the assessee and in the light of rule 48 which was enacted in pursuance of that proviso. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... onal Collector of Customs are orders which are manifestly unjust. In the circumstances, we do not think that the mere existence of the alternative remedy by way of an application for revision under section 191 of the Sea Customs Act precludes the respondent from obtaining the relief that he has asked for in his writ application. 19.Our attention was drawn to the cases reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1095 at p. 1099, paragraph 11 (Shivram Poddar v. Income Tax Office, Central Circle, Calcutta) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1156 at p. 1159, paragraph 9 (The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., v. Pothan Joseph) A.I.R, 1961 Bom. 234, paragraph 9 (Shantilal Chotelal v. M.G. Abrol) A.I.R 1962 Cal. 601 at p. 603, paragraph 9 (Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd. v. B.P. Herman and Mohatta (Private) Ltd. and 14 Sales Tax cases 410 (Bhopal Sugar Industries v. D.P. Dube). But it is not necessary to deal with these case at any length. 20.In the result, this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Recovery of duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the only meaning of the word, it might have been embarrassing for a Court of law to uphold exaction. But in the context used, the expression means compelling payment of duty . The Rule making subordinate legislative authority will do well to effect a change of language used in Rule 230 so as to do away with an expression not very chaste in its connotation. 9.A sum of Rs. 11,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar, Original Side, under orders of this Court. That sum the respondents may withdraw and appropriate towards the outstanding excise duty, subject, however, to the final decision in the adjudication order, which I am told is still subjudice. Thereafter, there will still be a sum of Rs. 431.28 p. outstanding under the adjudication order. The petitioner is no doubt at liberty to pay up that amount, subject to the final decision on the adjudication order and avoid the exaction under Rule 230. This Rule, however, is discharged without any order as to costs.

  ---

• 1965 (5) TMI 1 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  

  Interest paid on borrowed capital - whether deductible u/s. 8 if no interest had been derived by the assessee from the securities acquired by him from such capital - answer to the question referred would be in the negative

  ---

12