|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 706 Records
-
1961 (11) TMI 72 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ............" According to the learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income- tax, the legislature has accepted the view of the courts contained in the decisions previously mentioned and has incorporated the same in section 73 as a substantive and independent provision. Whatever the position may be with regard to the provisions in the new enactment, it is not permissible to interpret the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Act of 1922 with reference to what has been embodied in the new statute. It is only when the aforesaid section in the new Act comes up for interpretation that such a rule can be invoked or applied. As we are of the opinion that the view which has already been clearly and cogently expressed is unexceptional, we would answer the question referred to us in the negative. The Commissioner of Income- tax shall be entitled to costs which are assessed at ₹ 250. MEHAR SINGH J.--I agree. FALSHAW J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1961 (11) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r year 1950. Had it been on foot of an agreement between the assessee and its workers, it would, as explained in Associated Printers (Madras) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1961 43 I.T.R. 281, have amounted to a legal liability. But when it was a case of voluntary payment, it seems to us that notwithstanding that the accounts are maintained on the mercantile basis, it was no more than a contingent liability which the assessee was not entitled to estimate and debit in advance of the date when it became converted into an accrued liability, or when it was actually paid. We answer the question accordingly, that is to say, the payment of the bonus made on the foot of the award is an allowable item for the assessment year in question. The payment voluntarily made towards the bonus for the year 1950 did not become an accrued liability in the year of account and was not deductible from the profits of that year. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1961 (11) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent in shares is in the course of the business of the minority shareholders, we see no reason why we should not hold that in questioning the propriety of the action of the company or the majority shareholders the minority shareholder is protecting the interest of his own business. Undoubtedly, any such action taken by the majority shareholders would detract considerably from the value of the shares held by the minority shareholder, that is to say, it would depreciate the capital assets of the minority shareholder in relation to his own business. It is accordingly the protection of his capital asset that is in question. In such a case and viewed in that manner, we are unable to see how the expenditure incurred in respect of these two suits does not come within the scope of section 10(2)(xv). In the result, the answers to the questions will be as indicated earlier. Since the assessee has only partly succeeded, there will be no order as to costs. Questions answered accordingly.
-
1961 (11) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vent privilege or facility paid in kind. It was expressly made part of the remuneration earned by the numbers of the Indian Civil Service. The Conditions of service as to remuneration having been guaranteed, the right to this benefit remained guaranteed to those members of the Indian Civil Service who were entitled to it before the Constitutions. This guarantee which was continued in force even after the Commencement of the Constitution was for the first time by Rules made in June 1957 by retrospective amendment of the Statutory Rules from July 12, 1956 sought to be cancelled. But the central Government in exercise of Rule making power was incompetent to destroy or cancel a constitutional guarantee. The High Court was, therefore, in our judgment, right in holding that rule 3 holding the rule 3 of the All India Services (Overseas Pay Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957, was ultra vires. In that view of the case this appeal fails an is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 68 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that case, the assessee who borrowed various sums of money for the purpose of meeting the household expenses, such as purchasing jewellery, etc., claimed to deduct these sums from the interest earned by her from her fixed deposit and her claim was based on section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Chagla C.J. and Desai J. agreed with the contention of the department that since the expenditure in question was unconnected with the income she had earned on her fixed deposit, she could not have recourse to section 12(2). It is only when a connection is established between the expenditure and the earning of the income that an assessee would be entitled to relief under section 12(2). That ruling does not render any assistance to the department. In our opinion, no exception could be taken to the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concurred in by the Tribunal. In the result, our answer to the reference is against the department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1961 (11) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s was capital borrowing is treated as a question of law, the Tribunal cannot be directed to record fresh findings of fact in order to enable the department to put forward a new case here. As has been held by the Supreme Court in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1959 37 I.T.R. 11 (S.C.) and Zoraster & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1960 40 I.T.R. 552 (S.C.), section 66(4) does not enable the High Court to raise a new question of law which does not arise out of the Tribunal's order and direct the Tribunal to investigate new and further facts necessary to determine this new question of law which has not been referred under section 66(1) or section 66(2) and direct the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case. For all these reasons our, answer to the question stated by the Tribunal is in the negative. The assessee shall have costs of this reference. Counsel's fee is fixed at ₹ 250. Question answered in the negative.
-
1961 (11) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tive argument also. There is another ground on which these writ petition must be dismissed. The enquiry against the petitioner in respect of this income is not yet concluded. In the circumstances it is difficult to say whether such reason as the Income-tax officer has to believe that the income was of the petitioner can prima facie be held to be invalid. Obviously there is no question of jurisdiction involved in the case. In such a situation, the proper remedy to mind is the remedy of appeal against any order finally passed under section 34. The attempt of the petitioner to short circuit the enquiry by this writ petition was to my mind not justified. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, has ruled in very definite terms that the remedy under article 226 of the Constitution cannot be allowed to bypass the remedies under the Act. For all these reasons the writ petition must fail and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e date on which the tenancy stands terminated". Mr. Bengeri, for the appellant, fairly conceded that the decision of this Court in Jivabhai's case was against his contention but he purported to rely on another decision of this Court in Sakharam alias Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas v. Manikchand Motichand Shah. In that case the Court was called upon to consider the question as to whether the provisions of s. 88 of Bombay Act LXVII of 1948 were retrospective in operation or not, and it has been held that the said provisions are prospective. However, we do not think that the position with regard to the provisions contained in s. 88 can be said to be analogous or similar to the position with regard to the relevant provisions of the amending Act XXXIII of 1952 with which we are concerned in the present appeal. Therefore, we do not think that Mr. Bengeri can make any effective use of the said decision. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ything to do with any of the acts which must have preceded the importation of the gold bars into this country. Tentatively speaking, it seems to us that item 81 refers to things or goods which have been illegally imported into the country and in that sense also, it is different from item 8. We need not, however, express any final opinion on this aspect of the matter. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence in this case upon which it could be held that the respondent had taken any part in the act or series of acts which resulted in importation of the gold bars. 29. We, therefore, agree with the conclusions of the learned trial Judge and we think that there is no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. 30. We have been exercised on the question of costs in this case but taking everything into account we do not think that although the appeal fails, the respondent is entitled to any costs. There will, therefore, be no order as to costs. Bose, C.J. 31. I agree.
-
1961 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he time of the previous complaint. The argument that this Court gave Special Leave in the case of Pramode Ranjan Sarkar and therefore there were points of importance is, in the circumstances of this case, a neutral circumstance and that fact cannot be used as a point in favour of the respondent. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the bringing of the fresh complaint is a gross abuse of the process of the Court and is not with the object of furthering the interests of justice. In regard to the power of reference to a larger Bench, we are in agreement with S. K. Das, J, and in the circumstances it is unnecessary to express an opinion as to the applicability of s. 196A Criminal Procedure code to the facts of this case. For these reasons we allow the appeals, set aside the order of the High Court and of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and dismiss the complaint. BY COURT In accordance with the judgment of the majority, the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... behalf of the beneficiaries, their conduct would amount to an assent and the administration of the estate has come to an end. The result is that the assessment orders are bad inasmuch as the Wealth-tax Officer proceeded on the footing that the provisions of section 21(1) of the Wealth-tax Act do not apply to this case and that the administration of the property has not yet come to an end, as also because it has been held that the shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate. For all these reasons, the application should succeed and the rule is made absolute and the impugned assessment orders for the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 mentioned in the petition are quashed and/or set a side by a writ in the nature of certiorari and there will be issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the same. The respondents will now be at liberty to make assessments in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e income under the major head can be computed. In the present case, as it is not denied that the assessee is in receipt of income which also falls under the head "income from other sources", it should follow that the interest payment being an allowable item of expenditure under section 12(2) can be set off or adjusted against the other income under the same head before the assessable income under section 12 is reached. Though it is not altogether necessary, we may also refer to Chhail Behari Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax , a decision of the Allahabad High Court, where again it was held that the interest payment on sums borrowed for purposes of investing in shares was an allowable items of expenditure under section 12(2) of the Act notwithstanding that no dividends were received from those shares. We accordingly answer the question in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250. Question answered accordingly.
-
1961 (11) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
onus to prove on the department that the gold was of foreign origin, and this foreign gold had been imported after restrictions had been imposed in March 1947.
extremely improbable that the gold would remain in the same shape of bars and with the same fineness as when imported after the passage of this length of time
-
1961 (11) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed in a manner which will be contrary or different from the procedure expressly provided in the Code." The Court in that case held that in exercise of the powers under s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Court cannot issue a commission for seizing books of account of plaintiff-a purpose for which a commission is not authorized to be issued by s. 75. The principle of the case is destructive of the submission of the appellants. Section 75 empowers the Court to issue a commission for purposes specified therein even though it is not so expressly stated that there is no power to appoint a commissioner for other purposes, a prohibition to that effect is, in the view of the Court in Padam Sen’s case, implicit in s. 76. By parity of reasoning, if the power to issue injunctions may be exercised, if it is prescribed by rules in the Orders in Schedule I, it must he deemed to be not exercisable in any other manner or for purposes other than those set out in O. 39
-
1961 (11) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT
Whether sugar-cane falls within the term "green vegetables" and is therefore exempt from sales tax under the exemption given by the notification dated August 28, 1947, issued under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act (Act XIX of 1947)?
Held that:- The preamble cannot limit or change the meaning of the plain words of section 2(c) of the Act which apply to the case of the appellant and therefore the amended section is applicable to the present case. It is an erroneous approach to the question to say that because of the words "for the financial year beginning on the first of April, 1950" in the particular context in the preamble, the definition of the word "dealer" was amended only for one year. Nothing has been shown indicating that section 2(i) of the Bihar Annual Finance Act intended to effect a temporary amendment in the previous definition of the word "dealer" in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act. The contention is therefore repelled. It was also submitted that the assent of the President was not given to the Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950. In our opinion that submission is equally without force because tax on sale of goods is a matter entirely within entry 54 of the State List and the amendment made in the definition of the word "dealer" in the Act did not require the assent of the President. In our opinion the appeals and the petitions under Article 32 are without merit and are therefore dismissed
-
1961 (11) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ceedings under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well. Firstly, it was the duty of the officers who prepared the list and survey report to provide the copy at the spot so that no allegation of any change therein is made by the assessee at any point of time. Thereafter when the said list, statement and report were to be used against the assessee it was incumbent upon the assessing authority to himself provide copy thereof. In the present case the copies were not delivered in spite of the application for the certified copy submitted again and again. The finding of the Tribunal that the certified copies of the survey report and the list prepared, and statement recorded were not supplied to the assessee and were used for levying tax and for imposing the penalty and the conclusion that on this ground also the orders of the assessing authority is vitiated is upheld. Both the revisions are rejected and the order of the Tribunal is maintained. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 56 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or and lessee. The question of transfer of ownership-whether in part or in its entirety-therefore does not arise in this case. Agreeing, therefore, with the opinion of the learned Tribunal, I hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no transfer of business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that in case of a lease of business premises and utensils there could not be a complete transfer of business as contemplated under section 19(1) of the Act. 5.. Having answered question No. (2) in the affirmative, question No. (1) becomes purely academic and does not arise for consideration in this case. It is thus unnecessary to answer question No. (1). This, however, does not mean that we accept as correct the construction put by the Tribunal on section 19(2) of the Act. The reference is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties are to bear their own costs of this Court. NARASIMHAM, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1961 (11) TMI 55 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to it in trade that expression means not only pure gold or silver but also an alloy of gold or silver with such small percentage of some other metal as does not take away from it, the character of bullion. If I may say so with great respect, the view taken by their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that bullion always means pure gold or pure silver does not rest upon a correct interpretation of that expression and should not commend itself to us. These writ petitions therefore succeed. We should, therefore, issue a direction to the Commercial Tax Officer, Additional Circle, Mangalore, directing him to determine the tax payable by the petitioners in respect of the sovereign gold sold by them only at the rate specified in the 74th entry of the Second Schedule to the Mysore Sales Tax Act. and not at the rate specified in section 5(1) of the Act. It is so ordered. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. MIR IQBAL HUSSAIN, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 54 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the quondum members of a Hindu joint family. Mr. Srinivasan asked us to contrast the provisions of the Rules made under the old Sales Tax Act of 1948, and points out that there is no provision either in the old Act or in the Rules made thereunder corresponding to what is contained in rule 43 made under the new Mysore Sales Tax Act. In my opinion, far from supporting the inference which Mr. Srinivasan asks us to draw, rule 43 framed under the new Act does no more than merely declare what all along was the correct legal position in the case of Hindu joint families. Mr. Srinivasan asks us not to express an opinion on what the position was in the case of a partnership firm, and we abstain from doing so, and leave that question open to be decided at the appropriate stage. In my opinion, these two writ petitions must therefore fail and should be dismissed. It is so ordered. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. MIR IQBAL HUSSAIN, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (11) TMI 53 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... I would hold that the assessee was not a dealer within the meaning of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. 10. My attention was also drawn by the learned counsel for the assessee, to letter No. 1795 dated the 26th August, 1950, in which the Business Manager of the Textile Marketing Organization informed the assessee though somewhat guardedly that he was not liable to pay sales tax. The liability to pay sales tax has to be decided on a construction of the provisions of the relevant statute and the facts found, and any opinion expressed by the Business Manager, one way or the other, has no value. 11. For the aforesaid reasons I am satisfied that the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the opposite party was not liable to pay sales tax for the quarters in question. The question is therefore answered in the affirmative. The assessee will get the costs of this reference. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 100. (One hundred only). R.K. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
