|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 699 Records
-
1966 (8) TMI 17
Assessee was the holder of an impartible estate, and, by an indenture, granted to his wife two premises for life by way of supplementary khorposh (maintenance) grant - transfer cannot be taken as a transfer by the husband of his assets to his wife - provision u/s 16(3)(a)(iii) cannot, therefore, be attracted
-
1966 (8) TMI 16
Whether the assessment to wealth-tax for the asst. yr. 1960-61 had been rightly made on the assessee in the status of an individual - as there was no other coparcener with the assessee on the valuation date, the assessment to wealth-tax was rightly made on the basis that the assessee was an individual
-
1966 (8) TMI 15
ITO disallowed the amount of sales tax liability claimed by the assessee on the ground that same was under dispute and assessee did not pay the amount - amount which was claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of sales tax was not deductible as a business expense
-
1966 (8) TMI 14
Assessee transferred a certain sum to another concern in joint loan a/c in his name and in the name of other two persons who were standing surities for the assessee - inclusion of the entire interest credited in the account books of CS Pvt. Ltd. in the joint loan account of M/s. BRP, IAP & HRP in the assessments of the assessee is legal
-
1966 (8) TMI 13
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52.
2. Nature of the amount received under sub-leases dated February 21, 1950, and November 20, 1956-whether they are capital receipts or revenue receipts liable to income tax.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment under Section 34(1)(a):
The first issue concerns whether the Income-tax Department was justified in reopening the assessment under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 34(1)(a) and (b) and concluded that:
- Section 34(1)(a) applies when income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's omission or failure to file a return or disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
- Section 34(1)(b) applies when income has escaped assessment due to information coming into the possession of the Income-tax Officer, but without any omission or failure on the part of the assessee.
The court found that no returns were filed by the assessee for the relevant years, which justified the reopening under Section 34(1)(a). The letters sent by the assessee to the Income-tax Officer did not disclose the lease amounts, leading to the conclusion that the department was not put on notice about the income in time. Therefore, the action of the Income-tax Officer in issuing the notice was upheld as valid.
2. Nature of the Amount Received Under Sub-leases:
The second issue pertains to whether the amounts received under the sub-leases dated February 21, 1950, and November 20, 1956, are capital receipts or revenue receipts.
- The court examined the agreements and concluded that they were essentially sub-leases and not outright sales of capital assets.
- The agreements allowed the sub-lessee to use the mineral rights for a specified period, with payments made in lump sums, which were essentially advance rent rather than capital payments.
- The court noted that the payments were intended as compensation for the use and occupation of the mineral wealth, making them revenue receipts.
- The court referenced various judicial precedents to delineate the difference between capital receipts (salami) and revenue receipts (rent), concluding that the payments in question were revenue receipts.
The court emphasized that the true nature of payments should be judged from a business or accountancy perspective rather than strictly legalistic terms. The agreements were seen as means for the assessee to derive income from the sub-leases rather than realizing the capital asset.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in favor of the Income-tax Department:
1. The reopening of the assessment under Section 34(1)(a) was justified.
2. The amounts received under the sub-leases were revenue receipts and thus liable to income tax.
The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the department, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 150.
-
1966 (8) TMI 12
Issues: Whether two sets of income derived by purportedly distinct firms during the same accounting year can be added for assessment.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference sought by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the aggregation of income derived by two purportedly distinct firms during the same accounting year for assessment. The partnership in question was initially constituted under an instrument of partnership on May 7, 1951, with three partners, one of whom retired on July 31, 1957. Subsequently, the remaining two partners formed a new partnership under an instrument of partnership executed on August 1, 1957. The Income-tax Officer initially aggregated the income earned before and after the retirement, treating it as a single firm. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that there were two distinct firms, with income earned before the retirement belonging to the old firm and income earned after the formation of the new partnership belonging to the new firm.
The key question before the court was whether the aggregation of income from the two periods was justified. The court emphasized the principle that when a partner retires, the remaining partners have the option to continue the old firm or dissolve it and form a new partnership. The determination of whether a new partnership was formed or the old one continued depends on various factors, including the terms and conditions of the partnerships. The court noted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal found that a new partnership was indeed formed by the remaining partners, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The execution of the new instrument of partnership was considered prima facie evidence of the formation of a new partnership, and there was no basis to question the validity of that finding.
Therefore, the court concluded that the aggregation of income from the two periods was not justified, as there were two distinct firms in existence. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the formation of the new partnership was valid and not a mere artifice to circumvent the law. The assessee was awarded costs in the reference, including advocate's fees.
-
1966 (8) TMI 11
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 34(1)(b).
3. Availability of material for reassessment.
4. Procedural propriety of the Tribunal's order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Reassessment under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary issue was whether the reassessment for the assessment year 1955-56 under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was valid. The assessee firm had initially returned an income of Rs. 1,21,058, which was accepted by the Income-tax Officer on October 11, 1956. However, the assessment was reopened, and Rs. 10,000 was added as undisclosed income. The Tribunal referred the question of the validity of this reassessment to the court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 34(1)(b):
The court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 34(1)(b). The key elements for exercising this power are the possession of new information and the belief that income has escaped assessment. The court noted that the Tribunal's observation in the appeals of two partners, which suggested that the sum of Rs. 2,500 should be assessed in the hands of the firm, amounted to new information. This new information gave the Income-tax Officer the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
3. Availability of Material for Reassessment:
The court considered whether there were sufficient materials to support the reassessment. The Tribunal had observed that the credits in the accounts of the lady partners were not satisfactorily explained and should be considered as income from undisclosed sources. The court found that the Tribunal's observation constituted new information that justified the reassessment. However, the court also noted that the Tribunal failed to consider whether there were materials before the Income-tax Officer to hold that the income had escaped assessment.
4. Procedural Propriety of the Tribunal's Order:
The court found that the Tribunal's order was defective because it did not address all the contentions raised by the assessee. Specifically, the Tribunal did not consider the argument that there was no material to support the additions made in the reassessment. The court emphasized that the Tribunal must clearly set out the facts, contentions, and reasons for its findings. The failure to do so rendered the Tribunal's order invalid.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that while the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction under Section 34(1)(b) to reopen the assessment based on new information, the Tribunal's order was procedurally defective. The Tribunal had not considered all the contentions raised by the assessee, particularly the lack of material to support the reassessment. Therefore, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal afresh after considering all the contentions on their merits. The assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 250.
-
1966 (8) TMI 10
The High Court of Madras held that a substantial error in a certificate issued for arrears due would affect the Collector's jurisdiction to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. The court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the decision to quash the proceedings due to the error in the arrears amount.
-
1966 (8) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss of Rs. 21,770 suffered by the corporation on the sale of securities was rightly treated as a capital loss.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Loss: Trading Loss vs. Capital Loss
The primary issue was whether the loss amounting to Rs. 21,770 sustained by the assessee (the Rajasthan Financial Corporation) as a result of the sale of certain Government securities between May 8, 1958, and May 25, 1958, could be treated as a trading loss or a capital loss.
The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, observing that the corporation did not deal in securities and its primary objective was to grant loans to industrial undertakings. Hence, the loss was deemed a capital loss.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, noted that the corporation's business was analogous to that of a banking concern and that it had to keep its funds in easily realisable securities. He concluded that the loss should be allowed as a revenue loss despite being shown as an investment in the balance sheet.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, holding that the corporation could not be regarded as carrying on banking business. The Tribunal reasoned that the investment in securities was due to excess capital not immediately needed by the corporation and not because of the peculiar nature of its business. Consequently, the Tribunal held the loss to be a capital loss.
2. Arguments by the Corporation
Mr. M. D. Bhargava, representing the corporation, argued that the corporation was engaged in a business analogous to banking, and thus its investments in securities should be regarded as stock-in-trade. He contended that the loss in the value of the stock-in-trade should be treated as a business loss. He further argued that the Tribunal's observations were more relevant to commercial banking than to development banking, which was the nature of the corporation's business.
3. Legal Precedents and Definitions
The court referred to the characteristics of banking as laid down in United Dominions Trust Ltd. v. Kirkwood and the statutory definition of "banking" under section 5(1)(b) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. The court concluded that the corporation was not conducting banking business as commonly understood.
The court also considered the principles laid down in Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Sardar Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The test was whether the sale of securities was connected with the assessee's business, making the loss a trading loss.
4. Analysis of Facts and Circumstances
The court examined the corporation's financial activities and obligations, noting that the corporation had substantial loan commitments and minimal cash on hand. The sale of securities was necessitated by the need to disburse sanctioned loans. The court reviewed the managing director's letter and annual reports, concluding that the sale of securities was closely linked to the corporation's business of advancing loans to industrial concerns.
5. Statutory Functions and Business Principles
The court referred to the relevant provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, emphasizing that the corporation's primary function was to support industrial concerns. The directive from the Government underscored the need to manage investments prudently to avoid frequent sales or borrowing against securities.
Conclusion
The court held that the sale of securities was necessitated by the corporation's business requirements and was not merely a change of investment. The loss incurred was, therefore, a trading loss. The court answered the question in the negative, indicating that the loss should not be treated as a capital loss.
Question answered in the negative.
-
1966 (8) TMI 8
Whether assuming that there was no reasonable cause for the failures of the assessee as referred to in section 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(b), the ITO was right in applying the provisions of and imposing penalty under s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961 - Held, no
-
1966 (8) TMI 7
Whether Tribunal acted rightly in upholding the application of section 297(2)(g) read with sections 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of returns - If, yes, whether on the facts here, and on a proper interpretation of section 271(1), the penalty levied has been properly computed
-
1966 (8) TMI 6
Whether the entire income of the assessee`s wife or any portion thereof from money-lending business and coffee estates was correctly added to the assessee`s income - Held, yes - money lending business carried on in the name of his wife belonged to the assessee
-
1966 (8) TMI 5
This revision arises out of an application made by the plaintiff in a suit for the production by the Income-tax Officer of certain assessment proceedings relating to the first defendant in the suit - held that section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, which is the only clause relied on for the revenue, is not attracted to the omission of section 137. The consequence is that the general effect of repeal without reference to section 6(c) will apply
-
1966 (8) TMI 4
Inclusion in the chargeable income of a total sum of Rs. 5,853 representing the difference between the purchase and sale prices of two houses - In the absence of a finding by the Tribunal that the purchase and sale of the houses was in the course of a trade in property or constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, no tax liability would attach to the sum of Rs. 5,853
-
1966 (8) TMI 3
Assessee had made contributions to the J Trust in respect of various amounts and claimed exemption - Board was not justified in holding that only 60 per cent of the amounts actually spent by the assessee for `charitable purposes` from the agricultural income was admissible as deduction under s. 2(2) of the Rules framed under the Assam Agrl. IT Act.
-
1966 (8) TMI 2
Expenditure made by assessee to procure the use of money from the bank in the shape of an overdraft for the purpose of its business - expenditure wholly laid out for the purpose of its business - expenditure incurred by the assessee is an allowable item of deduction under s. 10(2)(xv)
-
1966 (8) TMI 1
Amount debited by the assessee to the profit and loss account and credited to the sales tax account is an admissible deduction - assessee is entitled to a deduction during the year in which the liability became ascertained for him irrespective of the time at which the actual payment of the sales tax was made by the assessee
-
1966 (7) TMI 77
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition.
2. Validity of the Repealing Act under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.
3. Legislative competence of the Bombay State Legislature to pass the Repealing Act.
4. Determination of the rightful beneficiaries of the trust properties after the repeal of the Baronetcy Act.
5. Application of the doctrine of resulting trust and the intention contrary to a resulting trust.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Petition:
The maintainability of the petition was challenged by Mr. Chagla, arguing that the Repealing Act itself was ultra vires the Bombay State Legislature as it violated Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution. Mr. Bhabha countered, arguing that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 had no "immediate and direct" interest in the trust properties, thus could not challenge the validity of the Repealing Act. The court found that the preliminary objection was not well taken, noting that the challenge to the Act was not confined to property rights but also included legislative competence.
2. Validity of the Repealing Act under Articles 14, 19, and 31:
- Article 14: Mr. Chagla argued that the Repealing Act violated Article 14 by treating the Baronetcy differently from other similar trusts. The court held that the difference in treatment was justified as the Baronet in this case was an evacuee, unlike in other cases. Thus, there was a just and reasonable relation between the difference in provisions and the fact that the Baronet was an evacuee.
- Article 19: The court noted that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were not citizens of India and thus could not claim rights under Article 19. Even if they could, the court found that the Repealing Act did not impose unreasonable restrictions on property rights.
- Article 31: The court found no substance in the plea that the Repealing Act violated Article 31. The Act did not compulsorily acquire or requisition property; it merely transferred the trust properties to the Official Trustee for distribution.
3. Legislative Competence:
Mr. Chagla argued that the Bombay State Legislature lacked the competence to pass the Repealing Act as it fell under Item 44 of List I (Union List). The court held that the Repealing Act was primarily about trusts and trustees, falling under Item 10 of List III (Concurrent List). The court also found that the State Legislature had the power to repeal an existing law with the assent of the President, which was obtained in this case.
4. Determination of Rightful Beneficiaries:
The court had to determine whether the trust properties should revert to the estate of the First Baronet or be distributed according to the Will of the First Baronet. The court concluded that the properties reverted to the estate of the First Baronet on the extinguishment of the statutory trust created by the Baronetcy Act.
5. Doctrine of Resulting Trust and Intention Contrary to Resulting Trust:
The court examined whether the doctrine of resulting trust applied, which would mean the properties reverted to the estate of the First Baronet. The court also considered whether there was an intention contrary to a resulting trust, which would mean the properties should go to the Fourth Baronet. The court found that the First Baronet intended the properties to benefit the Baronet for the time being and his heirs. Thus, the Fourth Baronet was entitled to the trust properties.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of the Repealing Act, finding it did not violate Articles 14, 19, or 31 of the Constitution and was within the legislative competence of the Bombay State Legislature. The court also concluded that the trust properties reverted to the estate of the First Baronet and should be distributed according to the law, ultimately benefiting the Fourth Baronet. The appeal by the Custodian of Evacuee Property was dismissed.
-
1966 (7) TMI 76
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of import license and classification of imported goods.
2. Jurisdiction of civil courts to interfere with decisions of Customs Authorities.
3. Applicability of Limitation Act provisions.
4. Validity of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Import License and Classification of Imported Goods:
The plaintiffs, a partnership firm, imported goods under a license permitting them to import "Motor Vehicle parts" as per Appendix XXVI of J.D. 56 Red Book. The Customs Authorities, however, classified the imported goods as 51 sets of "Rixe" Mopeds in a "knocked-down" condition, rather than motor-cycle parts, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice and subsequent penalties under Section 167(5) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The plaintiffs contended that the goods were indeed motor-cycle parts as per their license, falling under Entry No. 295, whereas the Customs Authorities classified them under Entry No. 294, which pertains to motor cycles and scooters.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to Interfere with Decisions of Customs Authorities:
The learned single Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the civil court could not interfere with the findings of the Customs Authorities, even if the decision was legally incorrect, citing the finality of orders under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act. However, the appellate court referred to the Division Bench decision in D.P. Anand v. T.M. Thakore & Co., which held that there was no restriction on importing parts and accessories of motor cycles, even if they could be assembled into a complete motor cycle. The court emphasized that the Collector's duty was to verify if the goods matched the license and not to consider extraneous facts. The appellate court found that the Customs Authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction and approached the matter on an entirely wrong footing.
3. Applicability of Limitation Act Provisions:
The learned single Judge applied Article 14 of the Limitation Schedule, which prescribes a one-year limitation period for setting aside an act or order of a government officer. The appellate court, however, held that even if Article 14 applied, the suit was within limitation due to the two-month period allowed for the statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Furthermore, the appellate court found that Article 62, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received for the plaintiff's use, was more applicable. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in A.V. Subba Rao v. State, which supported the applicability of Article 62 in cases where money was received by the defendant under circumstances rendering the receipt of it a receipt for the plaintiff's use.
4. Validity of Notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The plaintiffs' notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was challenged as defective and invalid. The learned single Judge found the notice valid. The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs' cause of action in the plaint was based on the illegality of the Customs Authorities' orders and the recovery of money paid under protest. The court held that the notice sufficiently outlined the grounds for the plaintiffs' claim, thereby upholding its validity.
Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge, and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs for Rs. 45,100 with interest. The court found that the Customs Authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' suit was within the limitation period, and the notice under Section 80 was valid. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellants throughout.
-
1966 (7) TMI 75
Issues:
Acquittal of respondent under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 due to resignation as Director before the offense date.
Analysis:
The State Government appealed against the respondent's acquittal for an offense under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, a Director of a company, failed to file balance-sheets and profit/loss accounts as required by law. The respondent claimed to have resigned before the offense date, supported by a post card as evidence. The magistrate referred to the company's articles of association, specifically Clause 96, which stated that a Director's office is vacated upon written resignation to the company. The magistrate concluded that the respondent was not a Director at the time of the offense, thus not liable under Section 220(3).
The State argued that the respondent's resignation was accepted later by the Board of Directors, making him liable for the offense. The State relied on meeting proceedings as evidence, but the respondent objected as these were not presented during the trial. The court agreed with the respondent, stating that the case should be decided based on existing trial evidence. Even if the meeting proceedings were considered, the resignation clause in the articles of association operated automatically upon notice, regardless of acceptance. Therefore, the respondent's attendance at meetings post-resignation did not affect his Director status.
The court upheld the respondent's acquittal, emphasizing that the resignation clause operated independently of acceptance. The appeal by the State Government was dismissed, affirming the respondent's justification for acquittal under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.
............
|
9911796707
