|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 827 Records
-
1962 (12) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,21,000, being the value of the shares received by the assessee free of payment is income of the assessee and assessable under section 7 of the Income-tax Act ?
Whether compensation received for loss of employment or office or for cessation business is taxable under any of the three sections will fall to be considered, prior to the amendments of 1955, with reference to the general principle of income-tax which is to tax income?
Whether it is income or capital in the hands of the assessee?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Sum of Rs. 2,21,000 received by the respondent as employee from Killick Nixon & Co., his employers, on the occasion of the termination of his services after appropriate notice of one month, was not a payment made as compensation for loss of employment and, therefore, amounted to "profit in lieu of salary" in view of Explanation 2 to section 7(1) of the Act and was, as such, taxable to income-tax. The High Court was, therefore, in error in holding otherwise. It would accordingly allow the appeal with costs and my answer to the question referred would be that the sum of Rs. 2,21,000 received by the respondent is taxable to income-tax as "profits in lieu of salary" under subsection (1) of section 7 of the Act.
-
1962 (12) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the agreement was a trading agreement or something which was in the nature of an asset in the hands of the firm?
Whether the receipt can be described under section 4(3)(vii) as of a casual and non-recurring nature and not by way of addition to the remuneration of an employee?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court, with all due respect, was in error in holding that this amount was taxable.
-
1962 (12) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to pay interest in respect of divided income as provided under section 18A(6) of the Income-tax Act ?
Whether in making an estimate under section 18A(2) of the tax payable by him, the assessee should have taken into account the dividends received by him?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Income contemplated in the words "income to which the provisions of section 18 do not apply" does not include dividends payable to a resident assessee.
-
1962 (12) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act initiated on 25th July 1949 to assess the amount of Rs. 9,180/which escaped assessment during the year 1942-43 by failure to submit a voluntary return are valid in law ?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Sec 34 of the principal Act as amended in 1948 applies to the notice-issued and the assessment order made in this case. Both of them are valid under s. 34 as so amended. The High 'Court should have answered the question framed in the affirmative.
-
1962 (12) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT
Whether having regard to the return dated the 7th March, 1951, by Sardar Lakhmir Singh in his individual capacity and to the provisions of section 34(3), the assessment made on him on the 27th November, 1953, is validly made ?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is not necessary in this case to say that the proviso is bad as making a hostile discrimination against the assessee mentioned in it and I do not do so. The respondent, Lakhmir Singh, was not the assessee in the section 31 proceedings in consequence of which the assessment order against him was made. The assessee was his father as the karta of a non-existent family. The proviso is invalid against the respondent, Lakhmir Singh.
-
1962 (12) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 is constitutionally valid and applies to the case?
whether section 34 as amended in 1948 applied to assessment years prior to 1948-49 and the second question was whether, on the footing that amended section 34 did apply to assessment years prior to 1948-49, any action could be taken under the amended section in respect of those assessments which had become time-barred before the amended section came into effect?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Notice against the firm of " Purshottam Laxmidas " was validly issued under the amended second proviso to section 34(3) and its validity cannot be called in question in any court or Tribunal in view of the provisions of section 4 of the Amending Act of 1959.
-
1962 (12) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of goods and observed that the mere circumstance that the chattel made was fitted on to another chattel belonging to the buyer under the terms of the contract would not of necessity make the contract one for work and not one of sale, that what was intended by the parties was the sale and purchase of the manufactured motor body as an article or chattel. Whatever view we may take of the decision on the facts appearing in that case, what we are concerned with now are the principles which have to be applied. There is no dispute as regards the principles which have to be applied in the present case. Applying those principles to the facts of the present case, we have no doubt in our minds that the contract in the present case is not a contract for the sale of goods, but a contract for work and labour. Our answer to the question is that it was a works contract not amounting to sale. The opponent will pay to the applicants the costs of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (12) TMI 51 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... words did not clearly and unambiguously impose the obligation, the item should be interpreted in favour of the subject. All doubt was, however, dispelled when the word jaise meaning such as was introduced between kirana and the goods thereafter specified in item 44. The addition of that word clearly indicated that the specific mention of certain kinds of goods was merely illustrative and not exhaustive of the kinds of goods enumerated in that item and this was reinforced by the addition of the words ityadi ityadi meaning etcetera etcetera . Since, as shown, turmeric is undoubtedly within the meaning of the word kirana , we are of opinion that sales of turmeric became taxable as from 27th May, 1955. 7.. In the view we have taken, our answer to the question referred to us is that sales of turmeric became taxable under item 44 with effect from 27th May, 1955. 8.. We direct the non-applicant to pay all costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 50. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (12) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e meaning of the word vegetables as appearing in item 6 of Schedule II of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, this word must be construed not in any technical sense...........but as understood in common parlance. It has not been defined in the Act and being a word of everyday use, it must be construed in its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it . So construed, the word cloth , as used in Schedule I to the exempting Act, would cover hessian, i.e., cloth manufactured from fibres of hemp or jute. In the result, our answer to the question is that hessian in covered by entry 1 of Schedule I of the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Special Exemptions) Act, 1957, and the sale of hessian which is the subject of the reference is not taxable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The Commissioner of Sales Tax will pay to the opponents the costs of the reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (12) TMI 49 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ever, urged that there is in the body of the order of the Board, an implied direction that the sale proceeds of the forest produce should be taken at 2 frac12 times the price paid therefor. In our opinion, those observations were made by the Board merely to indicate what according to it might have enabled it to hold that the estimate was on reasonable and proper ground. We think that those observations do not in any way fetter the judgment of the Sales Tax Officer who has to decide the case in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case we have just mentioned. In conclusion, all that we need say is that this question does not raise any point of law. 7.. Having regard to what we have said in the foregoing paragraphs, we would answer the questions referred to us as therein indicated by us. In the view we have taken, we would direct the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those of the non-applicant. Hearing fee Rs. 75. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (12) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Member of the Board of Revenue has power to reject a petition after having read and considered it without hearing the parties. Whether that procedure is good or bad is another matter but there is no provision in the Sales Tax Act that any authority would decide without hearing the assessee. The assessee under the Bengal Finance Act is entitled to be heard and is actually heard and he his allowed to adduce such evidence as he thinks fit and proper. No principle of natural justice has been violated. I cannot also say that the rate of tax is so unreasonable as to restrict business itself. It may be that a Legislature may pass a law of taxation at such a high rate that it would be impossible for a person to carry on the business. It was not with the object of stopping business that the Act was passed. On the other hand, the basis of the Act is that the business may be continued so that tax may be realised. In my view, therefore, the Act is not ultra vires. Ordered accordingly.
-
1962 (12) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... son . This contention need not detain me, because the authority in this case has not proceeded to take action for cancellation of the certificate of registration except on the ground that the petitioner has not paid tax for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61. 25.. Therefore, it follows that the order under attack in these proceedings, namely, exhibit P-6, cancelling the certificate of registration granted to the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. I express no opinion whatsoever regarding the view taken by the authority in the assessment order exhibit P-3 in so far as it relates to the interpretation to be placed on the rights of the parties to the document exhibit P-2. That is a matter for the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge before the appropriate appellate authorities. 26.. In the result the writ petition is allowed to the above extent and the parties will bear their respective costs. Petition allowed in part.
-
1962 (12) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the sale is effected, has also no force. In any event, section 4(2) may not be denied its full operation, merely because difficulty may be encountered in some cases in ascertaining the place where it is effected by the application of the rules set out therein. 8.. In the light of what is stated above we must set aside the decision of the Tribunal and direct it to deal with the matter afresh. If the situs of the inter-State sales was outside the State, there can be no doubt that the first sales in the State were by the petitioner to his customers and that the assessment should stand. If, on the other hand, the situs of the inter-State sales was within this State, then and then alone, will the question whether the first sale in the State should be construed as the first sale in point of time or as the first taxable sale arise for consideration. It is unnecessary to deal with that question at this stage. 9.. The tax revision case is allowed as above. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (12) TMI 45 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sought to be achieved and therefore it was not void as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. 6.. In the present case on the application of the slabs provided under rule 65, different categories of dealers emerge out of the classification but each one of them is an easily distinguishable class from the other and that the classification is based upon an intelligible differentia cannot also be doubted. By its very nature, it is not possible to obtain an absolute equality in the matter of taxation and certain amount of inequalities are bound to exist. The object of the Act is nothing more than to levy a general tax on sales and it is open to the Legislature to apportion the taxes equitably between different categories of dealers and it has a reasonable relation with the object of the Act. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the provision of rule 65 is discriminatory in nature and as such is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (12) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... blank sheets strung or bound together to a written or printed narrative or treatise. Magazines or newspapers must necessarily be printed or written material. Therefore, to fall in the same distinct category, the word books used here must be confined to a printed or written record. Accordingly, I agree that the diaries sold by this dealer are not covered within the meaning of the word books used in section 4 of the aforesaid Act. In the result, I would answer the question referred to this Court in the negative. By the Court Our answer to the question is in the negative. We direct that copies of this judgment shall be sent to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., and the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar, as required by section 11(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. We further direct that the assessee shall pay to the Commissioner the costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1962 (12) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essential for earning the exemption provided. The petitioner was not bound to utilise the goods purchased to fulfil the orders he had received. He could have, without breaking any contract, utilized them in any manner he liked. 7.. A sequence of events-which is all that we have-does not necessarily spell a causal connection between the events concerned. The petitioner s claim for exemption under sections 3 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, fails and is hereby rejected. 8. There is another matter which does not arise in the other cases heard along with this petition. That is the contention of the petitioner that a turnover of Rs. 16,699-12 nP. relating to green ginger is not liable to taxation in view of the Full Bench decision in O.P. No. 767 of 1959 . The Advocate-General concedes that the contention is correct and it is hereby sustained. 9.. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and rejected in all other respects. No costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1962 (12) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to be a dealer when it had decided to stop its business. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the first question should be answered in the negative so far as it relates to the sale of machinery. As mentioned earlier, learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed for an answer to the first question so far as it relates to the packing materials and other commodities. In view of our answer to the first question, the second question does not arise. The question was framed with reference to the contention of the applicant that the sale of machinery and of packing materials were not liable to be taxed as the business had been closed. The applicant is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 100. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, as required by section 11(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1962 (12) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... per to rely upon that circumstance when the hearing of the petition clearly discloses that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is well accepted that the existence of an adequate alternative remedy is not always a bar to the issue of a writ. In Muthuvelappa Gounder v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies 1960 2 M.L.J. 392., Jagadisan, J., observed that however convenient or expedient it may be to dismiss a writ petition before issuing a rule nisi on the ground of a subsisting alternative remedy, it may not always be just to do so at the final stage when the parties have incurred all the expenses and the Court has gone into the matter fully. I respectfully agree with this observation and hold that this is not a proper case where the writ petition should be dismissed on that ground. For the reasons that I have set out, the petition will be allowed. The rule nisi is made absolute. There will however be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1962 (12) TMI 40 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is in the interest of the public that the tax found due must not be withheld from the State merely because the assessment order is appealed against. One of the reasons for this view is that a democratic welfare State gives back to the citizens in various forms quite as much as, if not more than, it demands from them. Besides, normally speaking, parties must be left to have recourse to the procedure prescribed in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act for redress of their grievances and they should not be encouraged to treat proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as substitutes for the proceedings which are provided by the taxing statute itself. See The Punjab Woollen Textile Mills v. The Assessing Authority(1) Jiwan Singh and Sons v. The Excise and Taxation Officer(2). This should be all the more so where the assessee has already approached the Appellate Tribunal. For the reasons given above, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1962 (12) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... over determined for applying the rate or rates for determining the amount of the tax. It was not contended before us that the proceeds of the sales referred to in the question are not proceeds of sale of goods by a dealer and, therefore, are not to be included in turnover as defined in the Act the question raised is simply whether they should not be disregarded for determining the liability or taxability when they are to be disregarded for determining the amount of the tax to be assessed and the answer is clearly no . Our answer to the question is in the affirmative. We direct that copies of this judgment shall be sent to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., and the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar, as required by section 11(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. We further direct that the assessee shall pay to the Commissioner the costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
