|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 612 Records
-
1960 (11) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT
Whether sales under which goods were delivered outside the State of Bihar for the purpose of consumption but not within the State of first delivery or first destination, are exempt from the levy of sales tax by the Bihar State by virtue of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution as it stood before the recent amendment?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The power of the State to levy sales tax relying upon the territorial nexus between the taxing power of the State and the sale is impaired for reasons already set out to the extent to which it is restricted by the incorporation of Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto, in that Act. Therefore, sales effected on or after January 26, 1950, where goods are as a direct result of the sale delivered in another State for consumption in that other State, are not liable to be taxed. The order of the Superintendent of Taxes is set aside. He is directed to grant refund of tax paid in the light of this judgment. The appellant will be entitled to exemption from payment of tax if the goods are, as a direct result of the sale, delivered in another State for the purpose of consumption in that State.
-
1960 (11) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondents were carrying on such a business in respect of coal?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The position of the respondents was merely that of agents, arranging the sale to a disclosed purchaser, though guaranteeing payment to the colliery on behalf of their principal. In view of what we have said, no business of selling coal was disclosed in the instance cited before the Collector, and the order of the Tribunal was correct on the facts placed before it.
-
1960 (11) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the rules or in the licence itself that is, a licensee is exempt from assessment as long as he conforms to the conditions of the licence and not that he is entitled to exemption?
Whether the conditions upon which the licence is given are fulfilled or not?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The appellants have been found to have contravened the provisions of the Act as well as the rules and therefore it cannot be said that they have observed the conditions upon which the exemption under the licence is available. In that view of the matter, it was rightly held that they were not exempt from assessment under the Act.
-
1960 (11) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the transaction in question in this case amounted to a sale within the meaning of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The stipulation that the contractors themselves will have to supply the spare parts, as and when needed, for replacements of the worn out parts is also consistent with the case of the respondent that title had passed to the contractors and that they were responsible for the upkeep of the machinery and equipments and for depreciation. If it were a mere contract of hiring, the owner of the goods would have continued to be liable for replacements of worn out parts and for depreciation. Applying those tests to the terms of the agreement between the parties, it is clear that the transaction was a sale on deferred payments with an option to re-purchase and not a mere contract of hiring, as contended on behalf of the appellant.
-
1960 (11) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ed to set off the amount of the decree that may be passed against the claim of the respondent company. But, I fail to see how the mere fact that a claim has been put forward against the respondent company and which is pending adjudication by the court can make the claim of the respondent company which arises out of a decree passed in favour of the respondent company after contest, a disputed debt. It is, no doubt, alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition that an appeal has been preferred against the decree and the appeal is pending but it is well settled that the mere fact that an appeal is pending does not prevent the judgment-debt from being made the foundation of a winding up petition unless stay of execution of the decree is obtained pending the disposal of the appeal. So, this point also appears to be devoid of any substance. For all these reasons, we hold that this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Certified for two counsel. Lahiri C.J.-I agree.
-
1960 (11) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Inspection, production and evidence of documents kept by registrar ... ... ... ... ..... Supreme Court framed under the Judicature Act. This contention was not accepted as the source of authority under which the Rules of the Supreme Court were framed in England was entirely different. Mr. Roy extracted the proposition from this decision that granting of leave was a judicial act. Mr. Roy laid emphasis on the words leave of that court occurring in section 610(2) of the Companies Act and, in my opinion, rightly contended that such leave was to be obtained from the judge who would consider whether leave should be granted for the production of the original document. Before. I conclude I should state that in this case the subpoena that was issued was extremely vague as it required the Registrar to produce all papers, correspondence, returns and files. I, therefore, am of opinion that the subpoena dated July 20,1960, be set aside. As far as the petitioner s costs are concerned, I am of opinion that the petitioner should pay and bear its own costs. Certified for counsel.
-
1960 (11) TMI 46 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority – Power and duty to acquire
-
1960 (11) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1960 (11) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amounts received by the assessee are capital or revenue receipts and for that purpose it is necessary to investigate the nature of the grants made by the appellant?
Held that:- The question which has to be decided is what was the nature of the transaction. The covenants in the licence show that the licensee had a right to enter upon the land and take away and appropriate samples of all bauxite of every kind up to 100 tons and, therefore, there was a transfer of the right the consideration for which would be a capital payment.
In our opinion, the High Court was in error and the question referred should have been decided in favour of the appellant. Allow the appeal.
-
1960 (11) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in applying section 8(3) of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?
Whether in the computation of the capital employed in the business of the assessee, the Tribunal erred in not including the value of the goodwill or any portion thereof ?
Held that:- A question of law did arise in the case whether the goodwill of the Eros Theatre and Restaurant Ltd. was calculated in accordance with law. The Tribunal seems to have taken into account only the value of the leasehold of the site to the subsidiary company, and rejected other considerations which go to make up the goodwill of a business.
It is manifest that the matter of goodwill needs to be considered in a much broader way than what the Tribunal has done. A question of law did arise in the case, and, in our opinion, the High Court should have directed the Tribunal to state a case upon it. Appeal allowed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the admission fees of members or authorised assistants received by the assessee is taxable income in its hands ?
Held that:- The entrance fees were payable by the trading members elected under the rules and bye-laws of the association, who alone with their associates, could transact business in stocks and shares in the association. Therefore, the body of trading members who paid the entrance fees, and the shareholders among whom the profits were distributed were not identical and thus the element of mutuality was lacking. The High Court correctly answered the question in favour of the respondent
-
1960 (11) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sum of ₹ 5 lakhs has been properly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1951-52 ?
Held that:- The sum of ₹ 5,00,000 was not paid to the assessee in token of appreciation for the services rendered as a Dewan of Bhavnagar State but as a personal gift for the personal qualities of the assessee and as a token of personal esteem.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the High Court set aside and the reference is answered against the Commissioner of Income-tax.
-
1960 (11) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT
Whether as between the appellant company and the respondent the amount decreed is due as salary payment which attracts the statutory liability imposed by section ?
Held that:- In the present case there is a decree passed in favour of the respondent ; under the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, that decree has to be executed as it stands, subject to such deductions or adjustments as are permissible under the Code. There was no tax liability which the respondent was assessed to pay in respect of this amount till the date on which the appellant company sought to satisfy the alleged tax liability of the respondent. As between the appellant company and the respondent, the amount did not represent salary ; it represented a judgment debt and for payment of income-tax thereon, no provision was made in the decree. The Civil Procedure Code bars an action of the nature which was filed in Westminster Bank's case. The defence to the execution, if any, must be raised in the execution proceeding and not by a separate action. The amount payable by the appellant company to the respondent was not salary but a judgment debt, and before paying that debt the appellant company could not claim to deduct at source tax payable by the respondent. Nor could the appellant company seek to justify its plea on the ground that the judgment creditor was indebted to a third person. Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
Whether after the dissolution of the firm by the death of M. P. Thomas in October, 1949, no order imposing a penalty could be passed against the firm?
Held that:- the petition filed by the appellant should not have been entertained. The Income-tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment of tax and imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the income-tax authorities, and the appellant could not be permitted to abandon resort to that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Tribunal.
On the merits, the appellant is not entitled to relief. The Income-tax Officer found that the appellant had with a view to evade payment of tax, deliberately concealed material particulars of his income. Even though the firm was carrying on transactions in food grains in diverse names, no entries, in respect of those transactions in the books of account were posted and false credit entries of loans alleged to have been borrowed from several persons were made. The conditions prescribed by section 28(1)(c) for imposing penalty were, therefore, fulfilled. Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the circumstances of the case assessment proceedings were validly initiated under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Whether in the circumstances of the case the amount received from interest on arrears of agricultural rent was rightly included in the income of the assessee ?
Held that:- No question of law was raised before us, as it could not be in view of the decision of this court in Narayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer [1958 (10) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court] that the proviso was not mandatory in character. Indeed, there was time enough for fresh notices to have been issued, and we fail to see why the old notices were not recalled and fresh ones issued. Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that ₹ 61,818, spent by the assessee to train Indian boys as jockeys, did not constitute expenses of the business of the assessee allowable under section 10(2)(xv) ?
Held that:- High Court has rightly held that the expenditure claimed was one which was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the respondent's business. It was to prevent the threatened extinction of the business of the respondent. In the result this appeal is dismissed
-
1960 (11) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction of ₹ 1,350 and ₹ 18,000 from his total income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1953-54/1954-55 ?
Held that:- The question referred to the High Court ought to have been answered in the negative. We, accordirgly, discharge the answer given by the High Court, and the question will be answered in the negative. The appeal is thus allowed
-
1960 (11) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee's claim is sustainable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act?
Whether the assesse's claim that the loss was a business loss and, therefore, allowable as a deduction in computing the profits of the assessee's business is sustainable under law ?
Held that:- Considering the finding that there is mutuality and custom of borrowing money on joint pronotes for the carrying on of business. In our opinion, in the circumstances proved in the present case, and on the facts established and on the findings given, the respondent was rightly held to be entitled to deduct the loss which was suffered by him in the transaction in dispute. Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (11) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of ₹ 82,250 is an allowable expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- High Court rightly held that the amount claimed was not deductible and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
-
1960 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal's conclusion that the land was not assessed to land revenue within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act is justified ?
Held that:- The history of redemption is a matter of record, and it is plain that Government was accepting a down payment and freeing land from land revenue. This is precisely what was done, and the result of the down payment is set out with great clarity in the deed itself, and it is that there was no land revenue assessed on or demandable from that land. In fact, no demand or payment or charge in the nature of land revenue could ever be made on it. In view of this, it is, in our judgment, quite satisfactorily established that this land was not assessed to land revenue and the income from it did not fall within section 2(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The answer given by the High Court was thus correct. Appeal dismissed.
............
|
