|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 450 Records
-
1958 (10) TMI 53
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the terms of an overdraft agreement and promissory note executed by multiple defendants to a bank.
2. Claim for subsequent charge on buses given as security for a loan.
3. Dispute over the liability of specific properties for the recovery of a loan amount.
4. Exoneration of certain properties from liability based on additional security provided.
5. Validity of a charge on immovable property and buildings in favor of the plaintiff.
6. Dispute regarding interest rate and payment of a specific amount by the plaintiff.
7. Legal implications of a mortgagee's expenditure for property preservation.
8. Application of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act for compensation claims.
9. Sale directions for various properties and buildings in the decree.
Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a suit for money recovery involving multiple defendants who executed an overdraft agreement and promissory note as collateral security for a loan. The plaintiff sought recovery of a specific sum from the defendants and certain properties listed in schedules A to D. The trial court disallowed certain claims and passed a decree for a reduced amount. The appeals raised various contentions regarding the liability of specific properties and interests of individual defendants.
2. In A.S. No. 411, the 2nd defendant contended that his share in certain properties should be exonerated from liability based on a prior agreement. The court analyzed the terms of the agreement and held that the properties mentioned were not intended to be released. However, considering the payment made towards the claim, a direction was given for the sale of specific properties last. The appeal was dismissed with this direction.
3. A.S. No. 349 raised the issue of whether a building should be exempted from liability based on the appellant's acquisition and title deed deposit arguments. The court clarified the legal principles regarding immovable property transfer and upheld the plaintiff's right to a charge on the building. A direction was given for the building's sale after certain properties, and the appeal was dismissed with this direction.
4. The plaintiff's appeal in A.S. No. 403 raised concerns regarding the refusal of a charge on specific properties, sale directions for buildings, and the recovery of a specific sum spent by the plaintiff. The court allowed the recovery of the decreed amount by expanding the properties subject to sale, set aside impractical sale directions, and denied the claim for the specific sum spent as it was considered gratuitous. The appeal was partially allowed in favor of the plaintiff.
5. The judgment provided detailed analysis and directions regarding the sale of properties, liability exemptions, and compensation claims, ensuring a comprehensive resolution of the issues raised in the appeals. The parties were directed to bear their costs accordingly, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.
-
1958 (10) TMI 52
Issues:
Determining profit from a land sale transaction to a partnership firm.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the assessment of profit arising from the sale of land by the assessee to a partnership firm. The assessee initially contracted to purchase the land for a certain amount and later formed a partnership to develop and sell the land. The partnership firm agreed to purchase the land at a higher price. The Income Tax Officer treated the difference between the purchase price and the selling price as the profit of the assessee.
The Tribunal had conflicting opinions on the matter. The Judicial Member believed no profit accrued to the assessee due to his major share in the partnership and questioned the valuation of the land. The Accountant Member, however, concluded that the profit realized by the assessee was the full difference in prices.
A third Member of the Tribunal was appointed to resolve the dispute. The third Member determined that the land was indeed sold at the higher price and calculated the profit "on paper" to be a specific amount. The third Member also emphasized the indivisibility of the partnership and the assessee's profit share.
The High Court upheld the view that the profit accrued to the assessee was the full difference between the purchase and selling prices. The Court rejected the third Member's suggestion to stagger the assessment of the profit over multiple years, emphasizing the legal validity of the transaction and the straightforward calculation of profit.
In conclusion, the Court held that the profit accrued to the assessee from the land sale transaction to the partnership firm was the full difference in prices. The Court did not delve into the second question raised regarding the assessment methodology, as the first question was resolved decisively in favor of the revenue authorities.
-
1958 (10) TMI 51
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the renewal of a lease for running a salt factory could be treated as an asset of the dissolved partnership.
2. Applicability of Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act.
3. Whether the new lease enures for the benefit of all partners under English and Indian law.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the Renewal of a Lease for Running a Salt Factory Could Be Treated as an Asset of the Dissolved Partnership:
The core question in this appeal is whether the renewal of a lease for running a salt factory, granted by the Government in favor of the appellant and others (defendants 1 to 7), could be treated as an asset of the dissolved partnership. The trial court decided this question in favor of the contesting defendants, whereas the High Court of Madras determined this controversy in favor of the plaintiffs and some defendants on the side of the plaintiffs. The High Court concluded that the new lease obtained by Defendants 1 to 7 must be held for the benefit of the other members of the partnership, who are entitled to share in the advantage gained by Defendants 1 to 7. The High Court's judgment was based on the premise that the benefit of the renewal alone would be treated as an asset of the partnership which terminated on December 31, 1942, and a value placed on it.
2. Applicability of Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act:
The appellant's counsel contended that the High Court misdirected itself in construing the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, holding that a constructive trust had been made out in favor of the plaintiffs. Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act states that where a person bound in a fiduciary character to protect the interests of another person, by availing himself of his character, gains for himself any pecuniary advantage, he must hold for the benefit of such other person the advantage so gained. The High Court held that the contesting defendants, by obtaining the new lease, placed themselves in a fiduciary position and thus, the benefit of the new lease should be treated as an asset of the dissolved partnership. However, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs failed to bring the case within the first part of Section 88. The Court noted that the renewal of the lease without payment of any premium was the result of the changed policy of the Government, and the contesting defendants had managed the factory well to the satisfaction of the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, they did not avail themselves of their character as partners in obtaining the renewal of the lease.
3. Whether the New Lease Enures for the Benefit of All Partners Under English and Indian Law:
The High Court, after an elaborate discussion of English and Indian law, concluded that the new lease should be treated as an asset of the dissolved partnership. The Supreme Court, however, found that there is no absolute rule of law or equity that a renewal of a lease by one partner must necessarily enure for the benefit of all the partners. There is a presumption of fact, not law, that there is an equity in favor of the renewal of the lease enuring for the benefit of all the partners. This presumption is rebuttable and must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the facts that the partnership was deliberately fixed as conterminous with the term of the lease and license ending with the year 1942, that there was no averment or proof of any clandestine acts on the part of the contesting defendants in obtaining the renewal of the lease, and that the fresh lease and license were granted to the contesting defendants in consideration of their personal qualities of good management and good conduct, rebut any presumption that the lease should enure to the benefit of all the partners.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs failed to bring the case strictly within the terms of Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act. The renewal of the lease was not intended to be for the benefit of all the quondam partners. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court, in so far as they reverse those of the trial court, are erroneous and must be set aside. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout, attributable to the single issue decided in this Court.
-
1958 (10) TMI 50
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the ruling excluding the 8th defendant's proxy from voting.
2. Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit.
3. Plaintiffs' right to maintain the present suit.
4. Validity of the resolutions passed at the annual general meeting on 22-7-1957.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Ruling Excluding the 8th Defendant's Proxy from Voting:
The plaintiffs argued that the exclusion of the 8th defendant's proxy from the annual general meeting on 22-7-1957 was illegal and ultra vires. The 8th defendant had been recorded as a shareholder and had exercised his voting rights through a proxy in previous meetings. The ruling by the 4th defendant, based on Section 153 of the Companies Act, which states that no notice of any trust shall be entered on the register of members, was deemed incorrect. The court found that the provisions of the Official Trustees Act, particularly Sections 6 and 14, clearly allowed the Official Trustee to be entered in the company's register and to exercise voting rights either in person or by proxy. Therefore, the ruling of the 4th defendant was legally incorrect and could not be sustained.
2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Entertain the Suit:
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs should seek remedies under the Companies Act, such as approaching the Central Government or the Company Court, rather than filing a suit in a civil court. However, the court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court noted that the remedies provided under Sections 166, 167, 169, and 186 of the Companies Act were not applicable to the circumstances of this case. The court emphasized that the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, such as declaring the resolutions passed at the meeting null and void, could only be granted by a civil court.
3. Plaintiffs' Right to Maintain the Present Suit:
The court recognized that the 8th defendant had a cause of action to challenge the proceedings that negated his right to vote by proxy. The plaintiffs argued that they had been deprived of their legal rights due to the wrongful exclusion of the 8th defendant's proxy. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the action complained of was ultra vires the company's powers and constituted a fraud on the minority shareholders. The court cited several precedents, including the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, and recognized exceptions to the rule, such as acts that are ultra vires, fraudulent, or illegal, which justified the plaintiffs' right to maintain the suit.
4. Validity of the Resolutions Passed at the Annual General Meeting on 22-7-1957:
The court examined whether the resolutions passed at the annual general meeting on 22-7-1957 were valid. The plaintiffs contended that the exclusion of the 8th defendant's proxy rendered the proceedings illegal and void. The court found that the meeting was properly called and held, but the subsequent exclusion of the proxy was illegal, affecting the validity of the resolutions passed. The court declared the proceedings and decisions of the meeting null and void, illegal, and ultra vires. The court also issued a mandatory order to convene a fresh meeting to consider the agenda items from the disputed meeting.
Conclusion:
The court confirmed the decrees and judgments of the lower courts, recognizing the plaintiffs' right to maintain the suit and the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain it. The ruling excluding the 8th defendant's proxy was deemed illegal, and the resolutions passed at the meeting were declared null and void. The court ordered a fresh meeting to be held and appointed a receiver to manage the company until a proper board was constituted.
-
1958 (10) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a pending application in revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure abates on the death of the petitioner.
2. The extent to which a pending revision application survives after the death of the petitioner.
3. The applicability of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to criminal revision applications.
4. The discretionary power of the High Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction after the death of the petitioner.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether a pending application in revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure abates on the death of the petitioner:
The core issue in this appeal is whether a pending application in revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure abates on the death of the petitioner. The court examined the statutory provisions and judicial precedents to determine the legal position. It was noted that Section 431 of the Code, which deals with the abatement of appeals, does not explicitly apply to revision applications. The court emphasized that the revisional powers of the High Court are discretionary and are intended to ensure justice is served, indicating that such applications do not necessarily abate upon the death of the petitioner.
2. The extent to which a pending revision application survives after the death of the petitioner:
The court held that the High Court has the power to pass orders in its revisional jurisdiction even after the death of the petitioner. The judgment clarified that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is not limited by the death of the petitioner, especially when the sentence includes a fine which affects the estate of the deceased. The court concluded that the High Court could examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of the conviction and sentence, including the sentence of fine, even after the death of the petitioner.
3. The applicability of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to criminal revision applications:
Section 431, which deals with the abatement of appeals, was scrutinized to determine its applicability to criminal revision applications. The court noted that Section 431 explicitly applies to appeals and not to revision applications. The judgment referred to historical legislative intent and judicial precedents, concluding that the absence of a corresponding provision for revision applications indicates that the High Court retains discretion in such matters. The court inferred that the legislative intent was to allow the High Court to exercise its revisional powers based on the specifics of each case.
4. The discretionary power of the High Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction after the death of the petitioner:
The judgment emphasized that the High Court's revisional powers under Section 439, read with Section 435, are discretionary and are aimed at ensuring justice. The court held that the High Court is not bound to treat a pending revision application as abated due to the death of the petitioner. Instead, the High Court has complete discretion to deal with the matter based on the requirements of justice. The court highlighted that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction allows it to examine the merits of the conviction and sentence, including the sentence of fine, even after the petitioner's death.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, remitting the case to the High Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The judgment clarified that the High Court has the discretion to continue with a revision application after the death of the petitioner, especially when the sentence includes a fine. The High Court is empowered to examine the merits of the conviction and sentence to ensure justice is served.
-
1958 (10) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee can be said to be carrying on business and entitled to registration under section 26A?
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a joint Hindu family that partitioned some properties and entered into a partnership agreement. The partnership, named Messrs. Ramniklal Sunderlal, derived income from the partitioned properties. However, the Income-tax Department refused registration for the assessment year 1953-54, claiming the partnership did not carry on any business and assessed the income under section 12 of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this decision, leading the assessee to appeal to the High Court.
The primary issue before the court was whether the partnership was indeed carrying on a business and thus eligible for registration under section 26A. The partnership agreement included provisions for income division and specified that the father would handle certain business aspects with the consent of other partners. The counsel for the assessee argued that the partnership involved multiple plots of land leased to mills, incurring expenses for managing the business, such as maintaining a motor car and paying telephone charges. Additionally, in a previous assessment year, the assessee was assessed for income from speculation in shares.
The court examined the partnership agreement and emphasized that while there was an agreement and an element of agency, the crucial factor of carrying on a business was missing. The court highlighted that the Partnership Act defines a partnership based on three key elements: agreement, actual business operations, and agency. Mere ownership and income-sharing from property do not automatically constitute a partnership. The court referenced the English Partnership Act's stance that joint ownership alone does not create a partnership, emphasizing the need for a genuine business activity.
The court further discussed the distinction between co-ownership and partnership, emphasizing that the intention and actions of the parties determine the existence of a partnership. Quoting a case precedent, the court noted that engaging in activities for profit constitutes a business. However, in the present case, the court found no evidence of a genuine business being conducted by the assessee, his wife, and sons as per the partnership agreement.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the assessee was not carrying on a business and thus was not entitled to registration under section 26A. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the assessee to pay the costs, providing a detailed analysis of the lack of business activities despite the partnership agreement's existence.
-
1958 (10) TMI 47
Issues:
Interpretation of excess profits tax law in Baroda State for the assessment year 1949-50 and previous years; Taxability of interest on securities received by the assessee; Entitlement of the assessee to credit for tax under specific provisions.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the assessment of excess profits tax for the assessee, Shree Ambica Mills Ltd., in connection with the Excess Profits Ordinance, 1943 in Baroda State. The primary issue was whether a sum received by the assessee, which the Department sought to tax, constituted interest on securities. The Tribunal found that the sum did not represent interest on securities in the hands of the assessee, leading to the present reference.
The first question raised was whether the sum in question was assessable as interest on securities under the relevant tax provisions. The argument centered on the ownership of the securities and the entitlement to interest. The court held that the securities belonged to the Excess Profits Fund, not the assessee, and the interest earned was not the income of the assessee under the head of "Interest on Securities." Thus, the first question was answered in the negative.
The second question addressed the entitlement of the assessee to any credit for tax under specific provisions. The court emphasized that the assessee was not legally or beneficially interested in the securities held by the Fund, dismissing the contention that the Fund acted as a bare trustee for the assessee. Consequently, the second question was also answered in the negative.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the notice of motion taken out by the assessee and directed the assessee to pay the costs. The judgment clarified the tax treatment of the sum in question, emphasizing the legal ownership of the securities and the absence of entitlement to interest for the assessee.
-
1958 (10) TMI 46
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee from F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. is income and liable to be assessed under the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the F.D. Notification No. 878-F, dated 21-3-1922, as amended by Notification No. 8, dated 24-3-1928.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Rs. 1 Lakh Payment:
The primary issue was whether the Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee from F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. was a capital receipt as compensation for loss of employment or income liable to be taxed. The assessee argued that the payment was compensation for the termination of his employment, while the Income-tax Officer contended it was remuneration for past services.
The court examined the terms of the agreement between F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. and the assessee, noting that the assessee's services were terminated on 1st October 1951, and he was subsequently employed by Cement Agencies Ltd. A resolution by Cement Agencies Ltd. on 27th November 1951 indicated the takeover of the services of the managing directors from the four groups, including the assessee.
The court referred to Section 7(1) of the Income-tax Act and Explanation 2, which states that a payment is considered a profit in lieu of salary unless it is solely compensation for loss of employment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had allowed the assessee's appeal, viewing the payment as compensation for termination of employment. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, considering the payment as gratuity for past services, emphasizing that the assessee was never out of a job and continued to work in the same capacity for Cement Agencies Ltd.
The court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing the legal relationship between the employer and employee. It concluded that the termination of employment by F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. resulted in a loss of employment for the assessee, irrespective of his immediate re-employment by Cement Agencies Ltd. The court stated, "the crucial matter is: In whose employment was the assessee and whether that employment was terminated resulting in a loss of employment of the employee?"
The court concluded that the payment was indeed compensation for the loss of employment, as the jural relationship between F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. and the assessee had ended. Therefore, the Rs. 1 lakh received was a capital receipt and not taxable as income.
2. Applicability of F.D. Notification:
The second issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of F.D. Notification No. 878-F, dated 21-3-1922, as amended by Notification No. 8, dated 24-3-1928. The court noted that this question would only arise if the first question was answered in favor of the Revenue.
Since the court's answer to the first question was in favor of the assessee, concluding that the Rs. 1 lakh was a capital receipt and not taxable, it was unnecessary to address the second issue regarding the applicability of the F.D. Notification.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in the negative, determining that the Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee was not income liable to be assessed under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, it did not address the second question. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs, and the reference was answered accordingly.
-
1958 (10) TMI 45
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
2. Reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the Act on the appellants' fundamental right to do business.
3. Validity of G.O. No. 356 dated 8-3-1952 establishing a market at Virudhunagar.
4. Validity of the prohibition on the collection of 'mahimai' allowances.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act and the Rules framed thereunder:
The appellants challenged the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (Mad XX of 1933) and the Rules framed under it, arguing that they constituted an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right to do business. The Act aimed to regulate the buying and selling of commercial crops in the State of Madras and establish markets for this purpose. The High Court upheld the Act and the Rules under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, considering them a valid piece of marketing legislation. The Act was designed to protect producers from exploitation by middlemen and ensure fair returns for their produce. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view, emphasizing that the Act was the result of extensive investigation by experts and aimed to eliminate middlemen, ensuring fair market conditions for growers. The provisions of the Act were found to be reasonable and related to the object the legislature sought to achieve.
2. Reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the Act on the appellants' fundamental right to do business:
The appellants argued that the Act's provisions were unreasonable and crippled their business. The Supreme Court scrutinized the Act's provisions, which fell into two groups: one providing machinery for controlling trade in commercial crops and the other imposing restrictions on carrying out the trade. The Court found that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary to achieve the Act's objectives. The licensing requirements and other regulations were aimed at ensuring correct weighment, providing market information, and settling disputes, thereby facilitating fair trading conditions. The Court held that the impugned provisions constituted reasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to do business.
3. Validity of G.O. No. 356 dated 8-3-1952 establishing a market at Virudhunagar:
The appellants contended that the government's order to establish a market at Virudhunagar imposed an unreasonable restriction on their right to do business, as there was already a well-established market in the area. The Supreme Court noted that the reasonableness of the restriction could not be decided based on the material before them and left the question open to be decided when the market was actually established. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of the restriction would depend on the circumstances at the time the market was established, including the conditions in the trade and the standards maintained in the existing market.
4. Validity of the prohibition on the collection of 'mahimai' allowances:
The appellants challenged the prohibition on the collection of 'mahimai' allowances, arguing that it was not a trade allowance and therefore not covered by Section 14 of the Act. The Supreme Court found ambiguity in the High Court's conclusion on this issue and emphasized that the question of whether 'mahimai' was a trade allowance needed to be decided based on the facts of each case. The Court noted that if 'mahimai' was not a trade allowance, the prohibition would be invalid. However, if it was a trade allowance, the prohibition would be superfluous. The Court left this question open to be decided in appropriate proceedings, as there was insufficient material to arrive at a definite finding.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act and the Rules framed thereunder, finding them to be reasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to do business. The Court left open the question of the reasonableness of the restriction imposed by the establishment of a market at Virudhunagar and the validity of the prohibition on the collection of 'mahimai' allowances, to be decided in appropriate proceedings. The appeals were dismissed without costs.
-
1958 (10) TMI 44
Issues:
1. Whether the establishments are considered factories under the Factories Act.
2. Whether the Factories Act is applicable to hotels and restaurants.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioners owned three establishments preparing food and drinks for the public, employing workers. They sought relief from the enforcement of the Factories Act, claiming their establishments were not factories as defined by the Act. The Act defines a factory as premises where a manufacturing process is carried out with a specified number of workers. The court interpreted the Act's definition of a manufacturing process, which includes treating or adapting substances for use, sale, or disposal. The court found that the preparation of food and drinks in the establishments satisfied this definition. The number of workers employed also met the Act's requirements, confirming the establishments as factories under the Factories Act.
Issue 2:
The petitioners argued that the Factories Act, encompassing hotels and restaurants, exceeded the Central Legislature's legislative competence. They contended that inns and innkeepers fell under the Provincial Legislature's jurisdiction. However, the court reasoned that the Act's objective of regulating labor conditions fell within the Concurrent Legislative List entry related to the welfare and conditions of labor. The court cited judicial precedents emphasizing the need to determine the true nature and character of legislation to ascertain its legislative competence. Applying this principle, the court concluded that the Factories Act's essence was labor regulation, falling under the Central Legislature's authority. Therefore, the Act's applicability to establishments meeting the factory definition was valid. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs, upholding the application of the Factories Act to the petitioners' establishments.
-
1958 (10) TMI 43
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and scope of "business connection" under Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Determination of whether there was a business connection between the assessee and the Indian company.
3. Assessment of income attributable to the business connection.
4. Applicability of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 42.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Definition and Scope of "Business Connection" under Section 42(1):
The Court examined the term "business connection" as used in Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, which deems income accruing to an assessee directly or indirectly through any business connection in the taxable territories to be income arising in those territories. The Court noted that "business connection" is an expression that has not been definitively defined by any court, and its determination depends on the facts of each case. The Court emphasized that the term is of wide and indefinite import and that the Legislature has deliberately avoided defining it due to the diverse and infinite nature of business dealings.
2. Determination of Whether There Was a Business Connection:
The Court analyzed the agreement between the assessee (Evans Medical Supplies Ltd., UK) and the Indian company (Evans Medical Supplies (India) Ltd., referred to as "Indco"), dated April 1, 1947. The agreement appointed Indco as the sole authorized agent in India and Burma, with provisions for commissions, advertising allowances, and restrictions on Indco's dealings with other products. The Tribunal had found that there was no business connection in respect of goods sold and supplied directly to the Indian company under clause 10 of the agreement. However, the Court disagreed with the Tribunal's approach, emphasizing that the nature of the dealings between the assessee and the Indian company indicated a business connection. The Court noted that the Indian company acted as the sole authorized agent and was obligated to spend the entire advertising and propaganda allowance on the assessee's products, which indicated a continuous and significant relationship.
3. Assessment of Income Attributable to the Business Connection:
The Court held that the income attributable to the sale of goods by the assessee to the Indian company accrued to the assessee through the business connection. The Court emphasized that the expression "business connection" requires a business in India, a connection between the assessee and that business, and income earned directly or indirectly through that connection. The Court found that the assessee had a business connection with the Indian company, as the Indian company acted as the sole authorized agent, received commissions and allowances, and was restricted from dealing with other products. The Court concluded that the profits accruing to the assessee from the sales to the Indian company were attributable to this business connection.
4. Applicability of the Proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 42:
The assessee argued that even if there was a business connection, no profits were liable to be assessed on a deemed accrual basis because all operations connected with the sales were performed outside the taxable territories. The Tribunal had accepted this contention, but the Court did not address this issue in detail, as it was not the primary question referred to the Court. The Court noted that the Tribunal's acceptance of the second contention was based on its acceptance of the first contention, which the Court had already rejected.
Conclusion:
The Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that there was a business connection in the taxable territories within the meaning of Section 42(1) in regard to the goods sold outside the taxable territories by Evans Medical Supplies Ltd., Liverpool, to Evans Medical Supplies (India) Ltd. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs, and the reference was answered in the affirmative.
-
1958 (10) TMI 42
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the Income-tax Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment.
3. Compliance with the conditions precedent for issuing notice under Section 34(1)(a).
4. Alleged vagueness and indefiniteness of the notice.
5. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 34 of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice dated April 2, 1957, issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, arguing that it was issued without reasonable grounds. The court found that the Income-tax Officer had sufficient information and reasons to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. The notice was issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, which is a requirement under the Act.
2. Reasonable Grounds to Believe Income Escaped Assessment:
The petitioner argued that the Income-tax Officer could not have reasonably and honestly believed that the income had escaped assessment. However, the court noted that the Income-tax Officer had information about undisclosed bank accounts with substantial deposits, which were not explained satisfactorily by the petitioner. The Officer's belief was based on concrete information and further inquiries, justifying the issuance of the notice under Section 34.
3. Compliance with Conditions Precedent for Issuing Notice under Section 34(1)(a):
The petitioner contended that the conditions precedent for issuing the notice under Section 34(1)(a) were not met, specifically the recording of reasons and the satisfaction of the Commissioner. The court found that the notice explicitly mentioned that it was issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner, and an affidavit in reply confirmed that the conditions precedent were satisfied. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove the total absence of jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer on the face of the record.
4. Alleged Vagueness and Indefiniteness of the Notice:
The petitioner argued that the notice was vague and indefinite as it did not specify the source of the escaped income and mentioned the assessment year incorrectly. The court held that there is no statutory requirement for the notice to mention the source of the escaped income. The phrase "income assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31st March, 1952, assessment year 1951-52" was found to be consistent with the Income-tax Act and Finance Act, referring to the assessment year and not the accounting year. The court concluded that the notice was not vague or indefinite and complied with the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Act.
5. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 34 of the Act:
The petitioner claimed that the notice was issued under sub-clause (b) of Section 34(1) and was therefore time-barred. The court found no basis for this assumption, determining that the notice was issued under sub-clause (a) of Section 34(1), which does not have a time limit for issuing notices. The court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer's subjective satisfaction is crucial for proceeding under Section 34(1)(a), and the petitioner failed to prove the Officer's lack of jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act was valid, the Income-tax Officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment, the conditions precedent for issuing the notice were met, the notice was not vague or indefinite, and the petitioner failed to prove the absence of jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer. The rule was discharged, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
-
1958 (10) TMI 41
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of action under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Retrospective effect of the amendment to section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
3. Inclusion of income from trust properties in the total income of the settlor.
4. Re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1952-53.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the initiation of action under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary issue was whether the Income-tax Officer was entitled to issue a notice under section 34(1)(b) to re-open the assessment for the year 1952-53 based on the amended section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, which received assent on May 24, 1953, but was given retrospective effect from April 1, 1952. The Tribunal had initially accepted the contention that the initiation of action under section 34 was not proper for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 due to the lack of ignorance of facts by the Income-tax Officer. However, for the assessment year 1952-53, the Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings could not be set aside merely based on the amendment being retrospective.
2. Retrospective effect of the amendment to section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act:
The amendment to section 4(3)(i) by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, made the income derived from property held under trust subject to the provisions of section 16(1)(c). This amendment was given retrospective effect from April 1, 1952. The Tribunal considered that the law as amended could not apply to re-open a completed assessment for the year 1952-53. However, the High Court held that the retrospective amendment could be applied to re-open the assessment under section 34(1)(b).
3. Inclusion of income from trust properties in the total income of the settlor:
The assessee had created a revocable trust in 1940, and the income from the trust properties was initially exempt under section 4(3)(i) as it then stood. The Income-tax Officer had included this income in the total income of the assessee based on section 16(1)(c). The High Court had previously ruled in favor of the assessee, excluding the trust income from the total income. However, with the amendment to section 4(3)(i), the income from the trust properties was to be included in the total income of the settlor, Bai Navajbai, for the assessment year 1952-53 and subsequent years.
4. Re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1952-53:
The re-assessment for the year 1952-53 was initiated based on the retrospective amendment to section 4(3)(i). The High Court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had the right to re-open the assessment based on the new information provided by the amendment. The Court concluded that the knowledge of the amendment constituted "information" within the meaning of section 34(1)(b), allowing the Income-tax Officer to re-open the assessment. The Court referenced the Supreme Court decision in M.K. Vankatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which supported the application of retrospective amendments to re-open completed assessments.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the Income-tax Officer was entitled to issue a notice under section 34(1)(b) to re-open the assessment for 1952-53 based on the retrospective amendment to section 4(3)(i). The assessee was ordered to pay the costs, and the question was answered in favor of the Department.
-
1958 (10) TMI 40
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of gifts made by Vithaldas to his daughter-in-law and grandchildren.
2. Deduction of interest paid on the gifted amounts under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Deduction of remuneration paid to employees under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Gifts:
The case revolves around whether the gifts made by Vithaldas to his daughter-in-law and grandchildren were legally valid. Vithaldas executed a deed on February 2, 1946, declaring his intention to give 1/4th of his share in the business to his daughter-in-law and grandson. Entries in the firm's books on November 12, 1947, debited Vithaldas's account and credited the accounts of the donees. On April 15 and 17, 1948, Vithaldas confirmed these gifts through written documents, which were accepted by the donees. The Tribunal found that the donees maintained separate accounts, were assessed for tax on the interest earned, and had withdrawn part of the sums for personal use. The Tribunal concluded that the gifts were genuine and legally valid, satisfying the legal requirements of a completed and valid gift. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the genuineness of the gifts was not in dispute and that the transactions were genuine and bona fide.
2. Deduction of Interest Paid on Gifted Amounts:
The assessee firm claimed a deduction of Rs. 15,947 for interest paid on the amounts gifted by Vithaldas. The Department challenged the validity of the gifts but not their genuineness. The Tribunal held that the share capital of the partners was an actionable claim that could be assigned, and the conditions of Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act were complied with. The Tribunal found that the gifts were accepted by Lilavati on behalf of herself and her minor children, and the firm made suitable entries in its account books. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the rights of the donees were defined and ascertained, and they became creditors of the firm. The court found ample material to satisfy the legal requirements of a completed and valid gift and upheld the deduction under Section 10(2)(iii).
3. Deduction of Remuneration Paid to Employees:
The assessee firm was a partner in another firm, Halar Salt & Chemical Works, represented by Harjivandas Vithaldas. Harjivandas employed two individuals, Bachubhai and Balkrishna, to manage the firm's affairs and paid them remuneration. The Department argued that this was an appropriation of profits and not a legitimate deduction. The Tribunal found that the arrangement was genuine, the employees were not related to the partners, and the payments were wholly laid out for earning the firm's share income. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, stating that the payments were legitimate deductions under Section 10(2)(xv) and were necessary for the commercial expediency of the business.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, upholding the validity of the gifts and the deductions claimed by the assessee firm. The court emphasized the genuineness of the transactions and the commercial necessity of the expenses incurred. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs.
-
1958 (10) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing the suit.
2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.
3. Good faith in prosecuting the earlier appeal.
4. Identity of cause of action in earlier and present proceedings.
5. Defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:
The primary contention in the appeal was whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by time. The trial court had dismissed the suit, holding it barred by limitation under Article 11-A of the Indian Limitation Act, as it was not filed within one year of the summary order dated 18-9-1948.
2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act:
The appellants claimed the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows exclusion of the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith. The trial Judge had found that the plaintiffs prosecuted Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 1948 in good faith but denied the benefit for the period from 17-12-1949 to 23-3-1950 due to late payment of paper book costs. The High Court disagreed with this view, stating that the exclusion of time should not be denied based on such technicalities, especially when the court had condoned the delay.
3. Good Faith in Prosecuting the Earlier Appeal:
The trial court had found that the plaintiffs prosecuted the appeal in good faith. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the question of good faith is a finding of fact, which should not be disturbed except for strong reasons. The respondents' challenge based on the non-appealability of the order under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code was not sufficient to negate the good faith found by the trial court.
4. Identity of Cause of Action in Earlier and Present Proceedings:
The respondents contended that Section 14(1) was not applicable as the earlier proceedings were not founded on the same cause of action as the present suit. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the relief sought in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 1948 was directly related to the cause of action for the present suit, which was the adverse order dated 18-9-1948.
5. Defect of Jurisdiction or Other Cause of a Like Nature:
The respondents argued that Section 14 was not applicable as the earlier appeal did not fail due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. The High Court interpreted the phrase "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature" broadly, including an untenable appeal within its scope. The court held that the earlier appeal being dismissed as not tenable was a defect of jurisdiction or a cause of a like nature.
Conclusion:
The High Court found that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The trial Judge's view that the suit was barred by time was based on a misapprehension of the law regarding the exclusion periods. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and remitted the case for further trial on merits. The appellants were also granted a refund of the court fees paid on the memorandum of appeal.
-
1958 (10) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Whether interest paid on borrowed capital for purchasing shares that did not yield dividend income can be set off against other income under section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Investment and Borrowing:
The assessee, a private limited company, purchased shares in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. for approximately Rs. 52 lakhs, borrowing Rs. 36 lakhs from the Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. These shares were pledged as security for the loan. Additional unsecured loans amounted to Rs. 13.5 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the investment was not a business venture but served the interests of some interested parties. The Tribunal held that if income from the shares was included in the assessee's assessment, the interest paid should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal stated, "We are unable to understand the stand taken by the Department that as dividend income is deemed to have accrued to the assessee, interest cannot be allowed."
2. Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal concluded that the investment in shares was capital investment, and there could be no question of ascertaining a minus income from that source. It observed, "If any dividend income is included in the appellant's assessment, the interest should be allowed against such dividend income." The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not have sufficient capital to possess the shares, indicating that the shares were held for the convenience of a third party.
3. Legal Question:
The primary legal question referred to the High Court was: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest paid on moneys borrowed for the purchase of shares in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., which did not yield any dividend income, could be set off against other income under section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act?"
4. Arguments Presented:
The assessee's counsel argued that under section 24(1), losses under any head of income should be set off against other heads of income. They relied on section 12(2), which allows for deductions of expenditure incurred solely for earning income, profits, or gains, even if no income was actually earned. The counsel cited the Supreme Court's observation in Eastern Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which stated, "It is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned."
5. Department's Stand:
The Department contended that the purpose of the borrowing was not to earn income but to serve the convenience of interested parties. They argued that the Tribunal's findings were conclusive and that the interest payment could not be set off against other income as the shares did not yield any dividend income.
6. High Court's Analysis:
The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's findings and the legal provisions. It noted that the Tribunal had mixed up the concept of the purpose of the purchase of shares with the motive behind the purchase. The Court emphasized that under section 12(2), the purpose of the expenditure should be to earn income, profits, or gains, regardless of whether income was actually earned. The Court stated, "There is considerable force in the argument presented on behalf of the assessee."
7. Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation by giving overriding effect to the motive behind the purchase rather than the purpose. The Court held that the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchasing shares, even if they did not yield dividend income, could be set off against other income under section 24(1). The Court answered the question in the affirmative and directed the Commissioner to pay the costs.
Judgment:
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, allowing the interest paid on borrowed capital for the purchase of shares to be set off against other income under section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs.
-
1958 (10) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the two sums of Rs. 1,36,903 and Rs. 2,00,625 are income of the 'previous year' ended March 31, 1948.
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether they represent an item of expenditure permissible under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in computing the assessee's income of that 'previous year' from its managing agency business.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the two sums of Rs. 1,36,903 and Rs. 2,00,625 are income of the 'previous year' ended March 31, 1948:
The assessee firm, Messrs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co., acted as managing agents for the Malabar Steamship Co. Ltd. and the New Dholera Steamship Co. Ltd., earning a commission of 10% on the freight charged to shippers. For the period April 1, 1947, to December 31, 1947, the firm earned commissions of Rs. 1,71,885 from the Malabar Company and Rs. 2,56,815 from the Dholera Company. These amounts were credited in the assessee's books but were later agreed to be reduced to 2.5% commission due to circumstances involving the shareholders' objections and agreements to change the managing agency to newly floated private limited companies controlled by the assessee's partners.
The Income-tax Officer taxed the original commission amounts, arguing that the income had accrued to the assessee and any subsequent reduction was a voluntary gift. The Tribunal's Accountant Member upheld this view, while the Judicial Member disagreed, citing the Bombay High Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chamanlal Mangaldas, which distinguished between "commission earned" and "commission to which the managing agents became entitled." The President of the Tribunal, acting as the third member, sided with the Judicial Member, concluding that the sums were not income of the assessee.
The High Court examined whether the reduction in commission was a voluntary gift or an agreement. The Court noted that the reduction was a result of negotiations and agreements with the shipping companies, not a unilateral gift. The Court emphasized the business nature of the transactions and concluded that the real commission to which the assessee became entitled was the reduced amount agreed upon. Thus, the sums of Rs. 1,36,903 and Rs. 2,00,625 were not considered income for the relevant accounting year.
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether they represent an item of expenditure permissible under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
Given the conclusion on the first issue, it was unnecessary for the Court to address the second issue. The sums in question were not considered income, so the question of whether they could be deducted as an expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) did not arise.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the sums of Rs. 1,36,903 and Rs. 2,00,625 were not income of the assessee for the previous year ended March 31, 1948. The transactions were seen as business agreements rather than voluntary gifts, and the assessee was only entitled to the reduced commission amounts. Consequently, the question of allowable expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) was not addressed. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, with the Commissioner ordered to pay the costs.
-
1958 (10) TMI 36
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to carry forward the loss for a period of six years under the Indian Income-tax Act despite the loss occurring under the Travancore Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the amount of Rs. 15,125-3-0 received by the petitioner from the lessees of the factory is assessable or not.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Carry Forward of Losses
The petitioner contended that under section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, they should be allowed to carry forward the loss of Rs. 4,032 incurred in the assessment year 1123 M.E. for six years. The Income-tax Officer refused this set-off, citing section 32(2) of the Travancore Income-tax Act, which allowed carrying forward the loss only for two years. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the carry-forward of losses should be determined by the law in force when the loss occurred.
The court examined whether the assessment should be governed by the law at the time of assessment or the law in force when the loss occurred. It referenced several cases, including *Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sind Hindu Provident Fund Society* and *Maharajah of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, which established that the law at the time of the assessment governs the assessment. The court concluded that the Indian Income-tax Act should apply, allowing the petitioner to carry forward the loss for six years.
The court also considered section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Part B States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1950, which was argued by the Department to limit the carry-forward period to what was allowed under the Travancore Act. The court rejected this interpretation, stating that the section was intended to preserve larger rights under the state laws, not to curtail the rights under the Indian Act. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to carry forward the loss for six years.
Issue 2: Assessability of Rs. 15,125-3-0
The petitioner received Rs. 15,125-3-0 from the lessees for breach of clauses 14 and 16 of the lease deed. The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as income, while the petitioner argued it was a capital receipt.
Clause 14 stipulated that the lessees should not compete with the lessors during the lease and for three years after its expiration, with a penalty of Rs. 10,000 for breach. Clause 16 imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 for discontinuing the lease before the agreed period. The petitioner credited Rs. 7,075-1-6 and Rs. 8,050-1-6 for breaches of clauses 14 and 16, respectively.
The court examined the nature of the receipts. It referenced *Commissioner of Income-tax v. South Indian Pictures Limited*, which distinguished between capital and revenue receipts based on the nature of the transaction. The court concluded that the damages under clause 16 were capital receipts because they compensated for the termination of the lease, which was the main structure of the petitioner's business. Conversely, the damages under clause 14 were revenue receipts as they related to non-competition agreements, which are part of the ordinary business.
The court also addressed the Tribunal's doubts about the arbitration and the allocation of damages. It found no basis for these doubts as the Department had not disputed the arbitration or the allocation at any stage.
Separate Judgments:
The court delivered a unified judgment without separate opinions from different judges.
Conclusion:
1. The petitioner is entitled to carry forward the loss for six years under the Indian Income-tax Act.
2. Out of Rs. 15,125-3-0 received, Rs. 8,050-1-6 is not assessable (capital receipt), and Rs. 7,075-1-6 is assessable (revenue receipt).
The Department was directed to pay two-thirds of the petitioner's costs, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 100.
-
1958 (10) TMI 35
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the spinning and weaving departments constituted one business or two separate businesses.
2. Whether the exclusion of the value of the building, plant, machinery, and electric fittings of the weaving department was in accordance with Schedule II, rule 1, of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the spinning and weaving departments constituted one business or two separate businesses:
The Tribunal was directed to submit a specific finding on whether the spinning and weaving departments constituted one business or two separate businesses during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that both the spinning and weaving sections of the assessee formed part and parcel of a single manufacturing business carried on by the assessee during the chargeable accounting period in question. This finding was based on the facts that there were no separate ledger accounts for the weaving section, and the assets were integrated into a single set of books. Additionally, the two activities were knit together and properly integrated in their operations.
2. Whether the exclusion of the value of the building, plant, machinery, and electric fittings of the weaving department was in accordance with Schedule II, rule 1, of the Excess Profits Tax Act:
The Excess Profits Tax Officer excluded the value of the buildings, plant, machinery, and electric fittings of the weaving department, reasoning that since the weaving department did not go into production during the chargeable accounting period, these assets did not become business assets and hence did not become capital employed for the purpose of earning profits during that period. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held that the amount expended on these assets was capital employed in the business and should be included in computing the average capital. The Tribunal reversed this decision, agreeing with the Excess Profits Tax Officer.
The Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, including Section 6 of the Excess Profits Tax Act and sub-rule (1) of rule 1 of Schedule II. It was noted that the rule states that the average amount of capital employed in the business shall be the price paid for assets, the nominal amount of debts, and the value of assets acquired otherwise than by purchase. The word "employed" in the sub-rule relates to capital and not to assets. The Court concluded that actual employment of the assets acquired is not necessary for them to be considered capital employed in the business. The funds used to acquire assets for the business, even if not yet employed, would still be considered capital employed.
The Court referred to the case of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Byron Ltd., which supported the view that assets need not be actively employed to be considered capital employed in the business. The decision in Birmingham Small Arms Co. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners was distinguished, as it involved a claim to compensation rather than actual capital expenditure on assets.
The Court held that the assets acquired for the weaving department, although not yet put into use, were still part of the capital employed in the business. The fact that the weaving department did not go into production during the chargeable accounting period did not disentitle the assessee from claiming that the money spent on it should be considered capital employed in its business.
Conclusion:
The Court answered the question referred in the negative and in favor of the assessee, concluding that the exclusion of the value of the building, plant, machinery, and electric fittings of the weaving department was not in accordance with Schedule II, rule 1. The assessee was entitled to have these assets included in the computation of average capital employed in the business. The assessee was also awarded costs.
-
1958 (10) TMI 34
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer cannot pass an order directing an assessee to pay a specified sum under section 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The section only allows for actual compounding of offenses through voluntary payment accepted by the officer. The court allowed the appeal and decreed in favor of the plaintiff with costs throughout. Leave to appeal was refused. (Case citation: 1958 (10) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)
........
|
9911796707
