|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 10 of 10 Records
-
1965 (6) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t there was a violation by the Income Tax Officer of the order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But even assuming that there was violation of the order, the fact that the Income Tax Officer proceeded on the footing of a higher income of the estate than the income mentioned in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be regarded as an error of law apparent on the face of the record, so as to enable this court to interfere with the orders made by the Income Tax Officer proceeded on the footing of a higher income of the estate than the income mentioned in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be regarded as an error of law apparent on the face of the record, so as to enable this court to interfere with the orders made by the Income Tax Officer by issuing a writ of certiorari. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs. H.K. Bose, C.J. - I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (6) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tisfy the maintenance fixed for the plaintiff and grant a charge in her favour over only that extent of properties in the A and B schedules. If the income from the B schedule property is sufficient to meet the maintenance granted to the plaintiff, then of course no question of creating a charge over the A schedule properties will arise. So far as the decree for past maintenance is concerned. I think it reasonable that in the first instance it should be executed against the B schedule properties and it is only when the decree is still not satisfied, the plaintiff can proceed against the A schedule properties. This will be provided for in the revised decree to be passed by the trial court. The second appeal is allowed in those terms. But there will be no order as to costs. Pending the trial court passing a revised decree, the appellants will not alienate the properties covered by Ex. B 1. The court fee paid on the Memorandum of Second Appeal will be refunded. 10. Case remanded.
-
1965 (6) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the assessment year 1958-59, the period with which we are concerned, consisted only of just over seven months and a half. But the mistakes of the Tribunal, however, are immaterial, for, even after their correction, the gross profits of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59 on the basis of the assessment for 1957-58 will be over ₹ 2,100 per bus taking the number of effective buses, as has been done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and apparently by the Appellate Tribunal, at forty-six. In these circumstances, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and answer the second of the two questions referred in the affirmative and against the assessee. The reference is answered as above, but without any order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub- section (5) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
-
1965 (6) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n levied in section 9(1) comprehends, in our view, also the point at which tax is attracted under the State Act. On behalf of the appellant further contentions were made that the proceedings of the Board of Revenue under section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act were time-barred and that in any case the sales which have been added by the Board of Revenue to the original turnover are not inter-State sales within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Central Act and the Board of Revenue had failed to give the appellant a proper opportunity to place necessary evidence to establish that the sales did not come within the purview of section 3(b). But, on the view we have taken, following the decision of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of sections 8(2) and 9(1) of the Central Act, we do not think it necessary to deal with the further contentions. In fact, no elaborate arguments were addressed before us on them. The Tax Case is allowed, but without costs. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (6) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the admitted facts I find that boiling of milk is part of the process of preparation of chhana . The mere fact that other actions are necessary to extract chhana out of boiled milk does not make the process anything other than cooking. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold that it has not been proved that chhana is not cooked food. If that is so, it is difficult to levy sales tax on chhana , falling as it does within Item 7 of the Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. Mr. Chakravarti contended, as a last resort, that chhana was not by itself food but various kinds of food may be prepared out of chhana . I am unable to uphold this contention, because it is common knowledge, of which I take judicial notice, that chhana is a well-known form of milk food. In the result I quash the impugned order, dated 25th January, 1963. Let a writ of certiorari issue accordingly. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this Rule, which I assess at five gold mohurs. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (6) TMI 5 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund (Customs) - Writ petition - Delay ... ... ... ... ..... force in this argument. Since, however, the respondents are lawfully entitled to the amount claimed by them, we do not think we should dismiss the petition on this ground alone. The Union of India was a party to the petition. The Union of India is also one of the appellants. It has been conceded by Mr. Modi that after the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution an order can be made by this Court against the Union of India. If, therefore, we had decided to interfere on this ground, we would have remanded the petition for a proper order being made against the Union of India or alternatively allowed the respondent to file a fresh petition. No useful purpose will be served by following this procedure, as it will only result in further avoidable delay and also unncessary expense to the parties. We do not, therefore, propose to interfere on this gound with the order passed by Mr. Justice K.K. Desai. In the result, the appeal fails. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.
-
1965 (6) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Export Duty and Cess - Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ect to, as the proceeding was a pending proceeding. 14. In our opinion this contention of Mr. Chakravarty is well founded. It is true that the Rule Nisi was issued, and the same was made absolute before fifteenth amendment of the Constitution came into force. But this amendment has conferred upon this court the jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs against the Union of India. It is well settled that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings out of which it arises. The appeal now before us, therefore is a continuation of the proceedings arising out of the writ petition. In exercise of the jurisdiction, conferred upon this court by the fifteenth amendment of the Constitution, appropriate writs under Articles 226(1) and (1A) may therefore be issued by this court in disposing of this appeal and the issue of the writ of Mandamus by Sinha J. is accordingly upheld. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed Each party to pay its own costs.
-
1965 (6) TMI 3 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift-Tax - (1) Whether a specific transfer of goodwill is necessary to invoke the provisions of the Gift-tax Act ? - (2) Whether by the transfer of the business the father had impliedly transferred the goodwill that attached to that business ? and - (3) Whether the calculation of the value of the goodwill by the Gift-tax Officer is correct ?
-
1965 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Tax recovery officer - held that no power has been conferred on the State Government, either expressly or by necessary intendment or implication, to give retroactive operation to any authorisation that it may make under section 2(44), the action taken cannot be sustained - reveneu's appeal fails
-
1965 (6) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income from salary, commission and sitting fees -Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income represented his individual income and not the income of the HUF of which he is the karta because character of the income has to be determined, taking into account the basic foundation from which it emanates
|
