|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 17 of 17 Records
-
1966 (6) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
... ...
... ... ..... lacious in that it overlooks the fact that the letter of the Superintendent of Central Excise dated 28th July 1954 is addressed to the Nalini Silk Mills on the footing that the Nalini Silk Mills still continues to be the joint family concern of the father and the sons and, therefore, the decision contained in that letter affects not only the father but also the sons and if the father has a cause of action, equally the sons also have a cause of action to have it declared that the said 64 power looms which were till 20th April 1954 being operated by the joint family ceased to be joint family assets from 20th April 1954 and, therefore, the art silk fabric manufactured on the said 64 power-looms from and after 20th April 1954 did not fall within the category of excisable goods and did not, therefore, attract excise duty. 14. These were all the contentions urged before me and since in my view there is no substance in them, the present appeals fail and must be dismissed with costs.
-
1966 (6) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , there is no evidence. The only difference in the weight between the consignment delivered to the consignee and that seized from the wharf was 22 Ibs. In a consignment of a total weight of 14,119 Ibs., amounting to 0.6 per cent. As pointed out by the Subordinate Judge, the difference is negligible particularly when D.W. 1 himself says that there can be variation due to absorption of moisture amounting to about one per cent. This small difference, as the Subordinate Judge points out, can be explained as attributable to error in observation or error arising in weighment made at different times and under different circumstances, and we agree with this conclusion. 36. In these circumstances, the order of the Collector declaring that the goods removed were not the same goods must be declared to be unsustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court and decree the suit of the plaintiff with costs here and below. 37. Appeal allowed.
-
1966 (6) TMI 15 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be made clear that this answer has relevance only to the period of three months commencing from April 1, 1955. (2) Our answer to the second question is that the first partnership by Raja Venkatarama Chetty and his six partners on November 1, 1954, and the second partnership formed on July 1, 1955, by Venkatarama Chetty and his son on the assignment by Thiruvengadam who held a valid lease from the State Government are not hit by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and the Rules made thereunder. (3) Our answer to the third question is that those partnerships were entitled to registration. (4) Our answer to the fourth question is that the partnerships are neither illegal nor forbidden by law. 49. As the assessee has not fully succeeded we make no directions in regard to costs. But we make a direction that there shall be refund of ₹ 400 deposited by the assessee with the Tribunal when the four applications out of which reference arises were made to it.
-
1966 (6) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before the Court. 33. In these circumstances, I am constrained to say that at what price Messrs, Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd., sold their shares to Munnalal Bhalotia and Co., is not a matter which concerns the Patrakola Tea Co. Ltd., at all. The affairs of the Patrakola Tea Co. Ltd., cannot be investigated for the alleged fraud or misconduct of some of its shareholders. The sins of the shareholders should not visit the company. With better materials and stronger evidence I might have been inclined to direct an enquiry; but to my mind it would be unfair to proceed on evidence produced by the petitioner in this application and to make an order under Section 237(a)(ii) The powers of the Court under this Section should be exercised with caution and the Court ought to require far more convincing proof of the allegations the petitioner has made. 34. In the result this application is dismissed. The petitioner will pay one set of costs to the respondents. 35. Certified for counsel.
-
1966 (6) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the acquisition of the estate was not for the purposes of agrarian reforms because hundreds of square miles of forest are sought to be acquired. But as we have held that the area in dispute is a grant in the nature of Jagir or inam, its acquisition like the acquisition of all Jagirs, inams, or similar grants, was a necessary step in the implementation of the agrarian reforms and was clearly contemplated in art. 3 1 A. o p /o p In this view it is not necessary to decide whether the area in dispute is a Mahal or covered by s. 3(8) of the Reforms Act as it existed in 1958 or earlier or any other question which was raised before us. o p /o p In the result the appeals filed by the State are accepted, the appeal filed by the petitioner Raja is dismissed and the petition under Art. 226 filed by the Raja is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. o p /o p V.P.S. o p /o p Appeals Nos. 653 and 654 allowed Appeal No. 655...... dismissed o p /o p
-
1966 (6) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e debts thereafter so that the debts could be treated as having become bad at that point of time. When the assessee claimed that the debts became bad in the accounting year, he was not called upon to show that it was not so and that the debts became bad prior to the accounting year. But the assessee should certainly satisfy the departmental authorities and the Tribunal on proper material or evidence that the debts became bad in the accounting year. We are of the view, therefore, that the finding of the Tribunal, though factual, is not based on any material or evidence and is also vitiated by an erroneous approach that the assessee had failed to show why he waited till the assessment year 1956-57 to write off the debts. We consider, therefore, that the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the law. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250. Question answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1966 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e management itself looked upon his services, it is not difficult to appreciate, as we think, that payment of pension was apparently thought of as a business expediency in the interests of the assessee's business. In fact, the premises of the resolution relating to payment of pension themselves show that it was as part of the terms of service that the payment of pension was resolved upon. Further, the last part of the resolution, namely, a condition of the pension will be that the officers concerned should not accept service, directly or indirectly, with any other banking institution without the prior consent of the board, also show that the payment was in the interest of the assessee's business. We are of the view, therefore, that the pension paid for the accounting years constituted an expenditure laid out for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The second question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250.
-
1966 (6) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m the petitioner and the denial of an opportunity to the petitioner and to his auditor to go through the accounts themselves as desired, and thereafter to urge objections with reference to the accounts undoubtedly amounted to a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed assessment. On this ground, I allow the O.P. and quash the orders exhibits P5 and P5(a). This will not preclude the 1st respondent from proceeding to assess the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law. 3.. As I have already held that the withholding of the account books of the petitioner is unjustified, and as it is not seen under what provisions the 1st respondent can retain the account books, the petitioner s prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to return all the account books produced before him by the petitioner and acknowledged in exhibit P1 must be granted and I do so. 4.. The O.P. is allowed as above. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1966 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... down by the Act of 1913. In fine, I would like to add also that the Act of 1850 never intended to be exhaustive or exclusive to confer jurisdiction it only confers certain powers on the Collector of Calcutta to levy the amounts of land revenue which were assessed under section 2 of the same Act, by resorting to the special procedure laid down in section 3. It is needless to point out after all this that the power of the Certificate Officer under section 4 of the Act of 1913 has now extended also to the assets of a certificatedebtor which are situated within the Presidency town of Calcutta, because by the explanation to section 3(3a), the limit of the District of 24-Parganas has been notionally extended to cover the area included within the town of Calcutta. Having regard to all these considerations, I am of opinion that this petition must fail. The Rule is discharged accordingly. But in view of the nice questions of law involved, I make no order as to costs. Rule discharged.
-
1966 (6) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the purchaser to pay the sales tax. The sales tax, thus, need not be passed on to the purchaser. In any case, it does not alter the nature of the tax which, by express provisions of the law, has to be paid by the seller. Merely because the petitioner has not collected or could not have collected the sales tax during that period, it does not make the tax any the less a sales tax or make it invalid in law. The final contention was that the classification made by section 5-A of the Amending Act is arbitrary and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This very argument was raised before a Bench of this Court in Kadiyala Chandrayya v. State of Andhra 1957 8 S.T.C. 33. This Court rejected that contention. It is not, therefore, necessary to elaborate the point here. For all the reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Government Pleader s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1966 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f any tax. It was argued that previous recommendation of the Governor was necessary for introducing or moving a money bill in the Legislature and as no previous recommendation was made by the Governor the Act is invalid. Assuming for a moment that there was no previous recommendation by the Governor, his subsequent assent to the Bill is sufficient in law to cure the defect arising out of the want of previous recommendation by him. Article 255 is decisive of the question. No Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State and no provision in any such Act, shall be invalid by reason only that some recommendation or previous sanction required by this Constitution was not given, if assent to that Act was given-(a) where the recommendation required was that of the Governor, either by the Governor or by the President. Even assuming that there was no previous recommendation of the Governor, that would not invalidate the Act. I dismiss the petition with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1966 (6) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Validity of the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 131 ... ... ... ... ..... ould have the effect of nullifying the provision in the statute by which the power has been conferred upon the several officers mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 131 of the Act. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court was followed by the Nagpur High Court in a decision in Fateh Chand Chhakodilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The question referred to the court in that case was whether the Income-tax Officer was entitled to call for accounts of more than three years back. This question was answered in the affirmative after relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court. It seems to me that the power conferred upon the Income-tax Officer to call for the account books under section 131 of the Act cannot be taken away or whittled down because of the limitations imposed by the proviso to section 142 of the Act. In that view of the matter this application fails and is dismissed. The rule is discharged. Each party to pay its own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1966 (6) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income from business in Ceylon - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the abatement of Rs. 704 only allowed to the assessee under article III of the agreement for relief from or avoidance of double taxation in India and Ceylon (in Notification S.R.O. 456 dated February 6, 1957), is correct in law - Held, yes
-
1966 (6) TMI 4 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
Collection of the entire income from the estate by one of the sharers or even by a common employee could not make their income an income from a joint venture - each of the sharers got his income as an individual. They could not, therefore, be assessed as an association of individuals
-
1966 (6) TMI 3 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
Trade loss - Debt advanced for the acquisition of the right of distribution in the course of a business, which the assessee was conducting as a distributor and exhibitor of pictures, is clearly a debt due to him in respect of the business within the meaning of s. 10(2)(xi) of the IT Act, 1922 - therefore, sum which remained unrealised was as allowable as trade loss
-
1966 (6) TMI 2 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under sections 28(1)(c) and 28(3), for the imposition of a penalty for concealment - held that, on a proper construction of s. 5(7C) and 28, the successor ITO was competent to levy penalty without giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard
-
1966 (6) TMI 1 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
Amount paid to a consultant which had been entrusted with the preparation of standard budget forms, establishment of budgetary control and evaluation of standard costs - deductible in the computation of the income of the assessee under s. 10(2)(xv)
|
