|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 950 Records
-
1974 (10) TMI 85
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Iron and Steel Controller was carrying on a business of selling goods within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Whether the Iron and Steel Controller was a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Business of Selling Goods:
The primary issue was whether the Iron and Steel Controller's activities constituted the business of selling goods under section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The Iron and Steel Controller, acting on behalf of the Government of India, disposed of surplus steel and T.C.A. steel, as well as leaflets, under the Technical Co-operation Aid Scheme (T.C.A.). The goods were sold at or below cost price, and the Controller did not have a profit motive. The court examined whether these activities could be considered as carrying on a business of selling goods.
The court referred to the definition of "dealer" in section 2(c) and the definition of "business" in section 2(1a) of the Act. The amendment to section 2(1a) stated that business includes any trade, commerce, or manufacture, whether or not carried on with the motive to make a profit. The court noted that the Iron and Steel Controller was not engaged in a commercial activity but was implementing a government project aimed at increasing food and agricultural production.
2. Dealer under the Act:
The court considered whether the Iron and Steel Controller could be classified as a dealer under the Act. The Controller's activities were not carried out with a profit motive, and the sales were incidental to the implementation of the T.C.A. project. The court referred to previous judgments, including Director of Supplies and Disposals, Calcutta v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, Calcutta, where it was held that the Directorate was not carrying on the business of selling goods but was merely disposing of surplus materials.
The court also referred to the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, where it was held that a person could not be a dealer unless they carried on the business of selling goods in a commercial sense. The court noted that the Iron and Steel Controller was a statutory authority discharging its obligations pursuant to government directions and was not engaged in any commercial activity.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Iron and Steel Controller was not carrying on the business of selling goods and, therefore, could not be considered a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The court answered the reference in the negative and in favor of the petitioner, stating that the Controller's activities did not fall within the mischief of the amended definition of business. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
-
1974 (10) TMI 84
Issues:
1. Taxability of bus bodies built by assessees on chassis supplied by customers as sales of bus bodies under Central Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court dealt with the issue of whether bus bodies built by assessees on chassis supplied by customers can be taxed as sales of bus bodies under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court referred to a previous case, T.V. Sundram Iyengar and Sons v. State of Madras, where it was held that the transaction of building bus bodies on customer-supplied chassis constitutes a sale of goods. The court in the present case found that the property in the materials used to build the bus body passed to the customer only upon delivery of the completed bus body as a specific chattel fitted onto the chassis. The court emphasized that the transfer of property in the bus body amounted to a sale, regardless of separate pricing for components, as there was no separate contract for the purchase of materials worked into the chassis during body-building.
The court noted that the current cases were similar to the precedent case, except for the method of initiating the body-building work. While in the previous case, the work was undertaken based on a repair order, in the present cases, it was initiated through correspondence between the customer and the assessees. The correspondence involved the customer requesting the assessees to construct a bus body on the supplied chassis, with specifications provided by the customer and agreed upon costs. The court highlighted that the property in the materials worked into the chassis did not pass to the customer during the process of body-building, and there was no separate agreement for the sale of these materials. Consequently, the court concluded that the property in the bus body passed to the customer only upon delivery of the completed bus body, constituting a sale of the bus body by the assessees to the customer.
In line with the precedent set by T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons' case, affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court dismissed the tax cases, upholding that the building of bus bodies on customer-supplied chassis constituted a sale of bus bodies by the assessees to the customers. The court ordered the dismissal of the petitions with costs and counsel fees awarded in each case.
-
1974 (10) TMI 83
Whether a Hindu marriage solemnised within this country can be validly annulled by a decree of divorce granted by a foreign court?
Whether a divorce decree will be recognised in another jurisdiction?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The International Hague Convention of 1970 which contains a comprehensive scheme for relieving the confusion caused by differing. systems of conflict of laws may serve as a model. But any such law, shall have to provide for the non-recognition of foreign decrees procured by fraud bearing on jurisdictional facts as also for the nonrecognition of decrees, the recognition of which would be contrary to our public policy. Until then the courts shall have to exercise a residual discretion to avoid flagrant injustice for, no rule of private inter- national law could compel a wife to submit to a decree procured by the husband by trickery. Such decrees offend against our notions of. substantial justice. In the result allow the appeal with costs set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court.
-
1974 (10) TMI 82
Validity of section 2(1) of Madras Act 37 of 1964 questioned - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Unable to understand the view of the High Court that if the sale price were taxed and rebate were given then there would be no objection to the tax. We do not understand how that can be done. We asked the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents to tell us how that can be done and they were not able to do so. The cost of conversion of the raw hides and skins to tanned hides and skins might differ from tanner to tanner. It is much easier to get figures for the purchase price of the raw hides and skins or the sale price of the tanned hides and skins than the cost of conversion. As the scheme of taxation is not on the basis of the sale price of tanned hides and skins the suggestion of the High Court cannot be adopted. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was in error in striking down the impugned provision of law.
-
1974 (10) TMI 81
Whether the supply for consideration by an assessee of bus bodies constructed and fitted to chassis provided by the customers amounts to sale chargeable to sales tax?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Looking into the agreement eventually executed and not to the invitation for tenders, and, even so, we find that what is specified in that invitation for tenders is that the price for building the bodies should be quoted by the tenderer with respect to each body. That does not mean that the intention of the parties was that the bodies should be treated as independent or composite units to be produced and sold as such. Indeed the preamble to that invitation by the Stores Purchase Committee makes it clear that what the tenderer was expected to do was the construction of the body and not to make a sale.
-
1974 (10) TMI 70
Whether the Parliament in not fixing the rate itself and in adopting the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of goods inside the appropriate State has not laid down any legislative policy and has abdicated its legislative function?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Since the very question whether such amendment of the law would make the transactions in question exigible to tax is one which is capable of giving rise to considerable argument, the mistake sought to be rectified ceases to be a "mistake apparent on the record", thus making it unamenable to correction under rule 38 of the State Rules. We are unable to accept this argument. It is true that the impugned notice clearly indicates that it is issued pursuant to the amendments made in the law aforementioned. But the fact that elaborate arguments could be constructed as to the interpretation to be placed on a statutory provision, which in one sense renders an earlier rectification of a mistake, would not, in our judgment, make such a mistake one that is not apparent on the record.
-
1974 (10) TMI 54
Issues:
Application under section 18FA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for management takeover of an industrial undertaking.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Justice R.P. Bhatt pertains to a company application under section 18FA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, seeking permission for the Union of India to appoint a person or body to take over the management of an industrial undertaking at Badnera. The application was made following an investigation under section 15A of the Act, which recommended restarting the industrial undertaking for the production of cotton textiles in the public interest. The Central Government supported the restarting of the mill to address unemployment concerns. The respondents argued against the application, contending that court discretion is essential even after a government opinion is formed. However, Justice Bhatt held that once the government forms an opinion and an application is made, the court must pass an order under section 18FA, albeit limited to a period not exceeding 5 years, with a provision for further extensions subject to court discretion.
The respondents further argued that the use of "shall" in section 18FA may render the provision ultra vires, but Justice Bhatt disagreed, stating that no constitutional challenge was raised in the application. He emphasized the mandatory nature of the provision and the court's obligation to follow the law as prescribed in section 18FA. Addressing a preliminary contention, Justice Bhatt clarified that the form of the application, whether a company application or not, does not affect the court's jurisdiction to pass an order based on the merits of the case. He highlighted that the Central Government had formed the necessary opinion for restarting the industrial undertaking, as required by section 18FA, thus compelling the court to grant the application for management takeover.
Consequently, Justice Bhatt made the judge summons absolute, granting permission to appoint a person or body to manage the industrial undertaking at Badnera for a maximum of 5 years. The official liquidator was directed to hand over possession to the authorized person after preparing an inventory of assets and liabilities. The official liquidator was also instructed to recover costs incurred during their tenure. No costs were awarded for the application, and the judgment had implications for Company Petition No. 54/1974, with no orders made in that regard. The judgment upholds the mandatory nature of section 18FA and emphasizes the court's duty to act upon a government-formed opinion for the public interest.
-
1974 (10) TMI 46
Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary objection regarding the particulars of the debt in the winding-up petition.
2. Bona fide dispute over the debt claimed by the petitioning-creditor.
3. Consideration of the wishes of other creditors opposing the winding-up.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Preliminary Objection Regarding the Particulars of the Debt in the Winding-up Petition
The company raised a preliminary objection that the winding-up petition did not contain any particulars of the alleged debt, thus not complying with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The learned company judge rejected this objection, stating that in cases where the petition is based on a deemed inability to pay due to non-compliance with a statutory notice under Section 434(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, there is no need to provide particulars of the debt. The judge emphasized that the petition should set out:
- The petition is by a creditor for a certain amount.
- A statutory notice in respect of that claim was served on a particular date.
- The company neglected to comply with the notice within three weeks.
The company argued that the petition must disclose a cause of action, indicating a debt and non-compliance with the statutory notice. The court noted that particulars of the debt must be given either in the petition or the statutory notice annexed to the petition. In this case, the petition lacked such particulars, but since the company admitted the debt through its counsel, this objection lost relevance.
2. Bona Fide Dispute Over the Debt Claimed by the Petitioning-Creditor
The company contended that there was a bona fide dispute over the debt, suggesting that some bills were not received, and there were disputes over certain amounts. The court found that the company failed to explain any dispute concerning the balance amount, which exceeded the statutory figure of Rs. 500. The company had admitted the debt in court, and consent terms were drawn up, although not filed. The court concluded that there was no bona fide dispute affecting the winding-up petition.
3. Consideration of the Wishes of Other Creditors Opposing the Winding-up
Section 557 of the Companies Act, 1956, allows the court to consider the wishes of the creditors. Eight creditors with claims aggregating Rs. 7,68,000 opposed the winding-up, while some creditors with claims totaling Rs. 3,03,862.07 supported it. The court noted discrepancies in the figures presented and considered the actual claims of creditors supporting the winding-up to be around Rs. 1,75,000, excluding certain disputed claims.
The court emphasized that the wishes of the creditors must be based on reasonable grounds. The opposing creditors argued that the company was commercially solvent, had competent management, and could make payments in the near future. The court found sufficient material on record to support the view that the company was commercially solvent, with substantial assets and payments made to creditors.
The court concluded that the wishes of the creditors opposing the winding-up were reasonable and supported by evidence. The learned company judge erred in dismissing these wishes as mere statements. The court also noted that winding up the company would not benefit the petitioning-creditor or the creditors generally, as the company had the means to pay its debts.
Conclusion
The appeal was allowed, and the order for winding up was set aside. The court directed the payment of the petitioning-creditor's claim and the claims of other supporting creditors from the deposit made by the company. The application for stay by Turner Hoare & Company Ltd. was rejected. The court emphasized that the wishes of the majority creditors, based on reasonable grounds, should prevail, and winding up the company was not justified in this case.
-
1974 (10) TMI 37
Issues:
Assessment of Central Sales Tax on appellant for transactions involving diesel generating sets purchased from Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai and sold to buyers in other states. Dispute regarding the property ownership, inter-State sales, liability for Central Sales Tax, and turnover estimation.
Analysis:
The Dy. CTO assessed the appellant for Central Sales Tax based on purchases of diesel generating sets from Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai. The appellant was deemed to have taken possession of the goods and arranged their transport to buyers in other states. The Revenue contended that the appellant was liable for Central Sales Tax on these transactions, with specific focus on sales to three parties outside the state. The appellant challenged the turnover assessment, arguing that they did not dispatch the goods and were not liable for Central Sales Tax. The AAC noted that the goods remained with Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and were dispatched by them to buyers as per appellant's instructions.
The appellant's counsel argued that Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. consigned the goods to buyers and were already assessed for Central Sales Tax on similar transactions, thus the appellant should not be taxed. The Revenue presented evidence of movement by lorry and gate passes for the transactions. The appellant's non-resident status and the nature of the transactions were emphasized, but the authorities concluded that the appellant was involved in inter-State sales, subject to Central Sales Tax. The argument that Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.'s assessment barred appellant's taxation was rejected.
Regarding turnover estimation, the assessing authority made an estimate due to lack of cooperation from the appellant in providing invoices. The appellant disputed the turnover figures, but the tribunal found discrepancies between the values adopted by Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and the appellant. The tribunal recalculated the turnover liable for Central Sales Tax at Rs. 1,97,391, lower than the original assessment, due to lack of valid declaration forms.
In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment of Central Sales Tax on the appellant for the transactions involving diesel generating sets. The turnover liable for tax was revised based on available evidence and discrepancies in values. The penal rate was applied due to the absence of valid declaration forms.
-
1974 (10) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Assessment of turnover under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the year 1959-60.
2. Cancellation of penalty of s. 4,442.00.
3. Disputed turnover related to inter-State sales by the appellant.
4. Applicability of exemption under s. 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
5. Tax liability on the second sale of machinery purchased from Sree Meenakshi Mills.
6. Legality of penalty levied.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madurai pertains to the assessment of the appellant under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the year 1959-60, involving a disputed turnover of Rs. 98,700. The appellant also sought the cancellation of a penalty amounting to s. 4,442.00.
2. The appellant, a registered firm in Bombay, had purchased diesel generating sets from Meenakshi Mills Limited, Madurai. The Revenue contended that the appellant sold one set within the State and the rest outside, leading to the disputed turnover related to inter-State sales. The assessment was based on estimates due to the appellant's failure to file returns or respond to pre-assessment notices. The judgment also mentions another appeal concerning three other generators purchased from the same Mills.
3. The facts in the present appeal were not in dispute, as the appellant sold machinery to National Power Supply Corporation, Calcutta. An argument was made regarding the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act on the Mills, but it was held that it did not bar the assessment on the appellant for sales within the State. The appellant later contended that the second sale of goods purchased from the Mills was exempt under s. 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
4. The appellant argued that the second sale of goods was covered by an exemption and was only a second sale, not exigible to tax under the Act. Referring to item 23 of the First Schedule, which was applicable until 1961, the appellant claimed that the assessment was unsustainable. The judgment agreed that the sale was only a second sale and not taxable, leading to the annulment of the assessment and cancellation of the penalty.
5. The appeal was allowed in its entirety, with the assessment annulled, and the penalty canceled. The judgment concluded that since the assessment itself was unsustainable, the penalty could not be upheld.
-
1974 (10) TMI 32
Issues:
Challenge to order levying excise duty and penalty for manufacturing French Polish without compliance with regulations.
Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash an order by the Superintendent of Central Excise, levying excise duty and penalties for manufacturing French Polish without adherence to regulations. The petitioner argued that French Polish did not fall under the category of Varnishes, as specified in the Central Excise Tariff. However, the Excise authorities maintained that French Polish was indeed a type of Varnish, justifying the duty and penalties imposed. The Central Government upheld this classification, stating that French Polish, being a solution of Shellac in denatured spirit, fell under the category of Varnishes. The Madhya Pradesh High Court also supported this view in a previous case. The petitioner's contention of discrimination based on a notification dividing Varnish manufacturers into pre and post-July 1963 groups was refuted, with the classification being deemed rational to prevent duty evasion and protect existing manufacturers' interests.
The court dismissed the petitioner's arguments, upholding the Excise authorities' classification of French Polish as Varnish. The court emphasized that the commercial understanding of the term Varnishes should prevail, rather than a technical interpretation. The notification dividing Varnish manufacturers was deemed reasonable to prevent duty evasion and safeguard existing manufacturers' interests. Additionally, the court rejected the discrimination claim, noting that the petitioner's situation differed from that of another manufacturer granted exemption due to the timing of their operations. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it with costs.
-
1974 (10) TMI 31
Whether the petitioners were entitled to the refund claimed?
Held that:- The appellants could not be allowed to split up their claim for refund and file writ petitions on this piecemeal fashion. If the appellants could have but did not, without any legal justification, claim refund of the amounts paid during the years in question, in the earlier writ petitions, we see no reason why the appellants should be allowed to claim the amounts by filing writ petitions again. In the circumstances of this case, having regard to the conduct of the appellants in not claiming these amounts in the earlier writ petitions without any justification, we do not think we would be justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in dismissing the writ petitions which were filed only for the purpose of obtaining the refund and directing them to resort to the remedy of suits. Appeal dismissed.
-
1974 (10) TMI 30
Issues:
Assessment of income over multiple years, Treatment of income from a single venture, Accrual of income in each year of venture, Duty of Income-tax Officer to determine income, Maintaining accurate accounts for tax assessment.
Analysis:
The judgment involves the assessment of income over a period of years by a partnership firm engaged in a single venture of selling cinder. The firm contended that the income should be apportioned for each year of the venture, while the authorities assessed the entire income in one year. The Tribunal held that due to the nature of the venture and lack of specific data in the firm's accounts, the income should be treated as arising in the final year of the venture. The Tribunal relied on the principle that if profits are not ascertainable until the venture concludes, they should be taxed at that point. The Tribunal distinguished previous decisions cited by the firm, emphasizing the unique circumstances of this case.
The main issue revolved around whether the income accrued over the entire period of the venture or only in the final year. The firm argued that profits could accrue each year of the venture, while the Tribunal found that based on the firm's accounting practices and representations, the income was realized in the last year. The Tribunal analyzed the firm's ledger entries, showing the purchase cost and sale price of cinder over the years, concluding that the profit could only be determined accurately at the end of the venture.
The judgment highlighted the duty of the Income-tax Officer to determine the income earned by an assessee, even if complete records are not provided. However, in this case, the firm's treatment of the venture as a single entity and the lack of detailed accounts led the authorities to assess the income in the final year. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific facts and accounting methods employed by the firm, which indicated that the profit was realized in the last year of the venture.
Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's assessment that the income arose only in the final year of the venture. The judgment clarified the basis for determining the accrual of income in cases of single ventures spread over multiple years. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of accurate accounting practices and the specific circumstances of each case in determining the taxable income.
-
1974 (10) TMI 29
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a writ petition challenging the validity of an order of a statutory authority should be entertained when a statutory appeal is provided but not availed of by the petitioner.
2. Whether the conditions for the Additional Commissioner to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act were fulfilled.
3. Whether the orders of the Income-tax Officer were correct on merits and should not have been interfered with by the Additional Commissioner.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Entertaining Writ Petition Despite Availability of Statutory Appeal
The court first addressed the preliminary question of whether to admit the writ petitions considering the petitioners did not avail themselves of the statutory appeals provided under section 253 of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide but should be exercised circumspectly to avoid overburdening the court and defeating the statutory scheme of appeals and revisions. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including *Lalji Haridas v. R. H. Bhatt* and *Champalal Binani v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, affirming that ordinarily, a party must exhaust the statutory remedies before seeking judicial review under Article 226.
The court noted that the rule of exhausting administrative remedies is not rigid and exceptions exist, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, error of law apparent on the face of the record, and others. However, the petitioners did not provide any explanation for not filing appeals, and their case did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed in limine for not availing the alternative remedy of appeal.
Issue 2: Jurisdiction Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner under section 263, arguing that the conditions for assuming jurisdiction were not fulfilled. The court explained that the word "erroneous" in section 263 includes the failure of the Income-tax Officer to make necessary inquiries. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions in *Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax* and *Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, which held that the Commissioner could regard an order as erroneous if the Income-tax Officer failed to make inquiries that the circumstances warranted.
In this case, the court found that the Income-tax Officer did not make adequate inquiries into the genuineness of the firm and the transactions, which justified the Additional Commissioner's action under section 263. Therefore, the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner failed.
Issue 3: Merits of the Income-tax Officer's Orders
The petitioners contended that the orders of the Income-tax Officer were correct on merits and should not have been interfered with by the Additional Commissioner. However, the court did not delve into the merits of the case, as it had already decided not to entertain the writ petitions due to the petitioners' failure to exhaust the statutory remedies. The court reiterated that the statutory appeal process provided an adequate mechanism for addressing the merits of the case.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the writ petitions in limine due to the petitioners' failure to provide an adequate explanation for not availing the statutory appeal under section 253 of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial review under Article 226, except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. The petitioners' challenges to the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner and the merits of the Income-tax Officer's orders were not entertained due to the preliminary dismissal of the writ petitions.
-
1974 (10) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Tribunal's finding based on the House of Lords' decision in Lynall v. Inland Revenue Commissioners regarding the valuation date of shares.
2. Correctness of the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's valuation of shares and deletion of Rs. 27,360 added by the Gift-tax Officer under section 15(3) of the Gift-tax Act.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the valuation of shares should not be made on an ex-right basis for the right shares issued by the company (not pressed by the assessee).
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Legality of the Tribunal's Finding Based on Lynall v. Inland Revenue Commissioners
The Tribunal's finding was based on the decision of the House of Lords in Lynall v. Inland Revenue Commissioners. The main question was whether the valuation of the shares of Bakubhai and Ambalal Ltd., London, should be based on the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1963, instead of March 31, 1964. The Tribunal held that since the only balance-sheet available at the date of the gift (October 17, 1964) was the one as of March 31, 1963, the break-up value method should be applied using this balance-sheet. The Tribunal distinguished this case from Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. Commissioner of Income-tax and followed the decision in Lynall, which emphasized that a hypothetical purchaser would only have access to information available to all shareholders at the time of the gift. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in using the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1963, for valuation.
Issue 2: Correctness of the Tribunal's Acceptance of the Assessee's Valuation and Deletion of Rs. 27,360
The Gift-tax Officer had valued the shares at Rs. 507 per share based on the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1964, while the assessee valued the shares at Rs. 450 per share based on the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1963. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's valuation, reasoning that the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1964, was not available to ordinary shareholders on October 17, 1964. The Tribunal concluded that the break-up value method should be applied using the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1963, which was the latest available balance-sheet at the time of the gift. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 27,360 made by the Gift-tax Officer under section 15(3) of the Gift-tax Act.
Issue 3: Valuation of Shares on an Ex-right Basis (Not Pressed)
The assessee did not press the question regarding the valuation of shares on an ex-right basis for the right shares issued by the company. Therefore, the court did not address this issue in the judgment.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal was correct in holding that the shares should be valued based on the break-up value method using the balance-sheet as of March 31, 1963. The Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's valuation and the deletion of Rs. 27,360 added by the Gift-tax Officer were also upheld. The question regarding the valuation of shares on an ex-right basis was not pressed by the assessee and was not addressed by the court. The judgment was in favor of the assessee for the issues pressed, with the Commissioner ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (10) TMI 27
Issues Involved:
1. Absolute ownership of the deceased under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
2. Devolution of the deceased's interest under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.
3. Classification of the deceased's interest as 'property' under Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and its passage under Section 5 or 6.
4. Liability of the deceased's interest to estate duty under the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
5. Accountability of the applicant under Section 53 read with Section 2(12) of the Estate Duty Act (not pressed).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Absolute Ownership Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The court examined whether Subhadra's interest in the joint family property, acquired upon her husband's death in 1944, became absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The accountable person contended that since no partition was claimed or effected, Subhadra's interest did not ripen into an absolute estate. The court rejected this contention, stating that the term "possessed" in Section 14 is used broadly to include both actual and constructive possession. The court cited several precedents, including *Kotturuswami v. Veeravva* and *Mangal Singh v. Smt. Rattno*, to support its view that Subhadra's limited estate was converted into absolute ownership irrespective of partition.
2. Devolution Under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act:
The court addressed whether Subhadra's interest in the joint family property devolved on her heirs under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The accountable person argued that the right of other coparceners to succeed by survivorship would revive upon Subhadra's death, merging her interest with theirs. The court dismissed this argument, holding that Subhadra's absolute ownership under Section 14 meant that her interest would devolve by succession under Section 15. Thus, her interest would be included in the estate liable to estate duty.
3. Classification as 'Property' Under Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953:
The court considered whether Subhadra's interest in the joint family property was 'property' under Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and whether it passed under Sections 5 or 6. The accountable person contended that Subhadra's fluctuating interest could not be ascertained in specie for estate duty purposes. The court refuted this, stating that her interest would crystallize upon her death, thus becoming property that passed to her heirs. The court emphasized that her interest, though initially fluctuating, became absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and would pass as property under Section 15.
4. Liability to Estate Duty:
The court concluded that Subhadra's interest in the joint family property was liable to estate duty under Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act. It further held that Subhadra, as the full and absolute owner of her interest, had the right to dispose of it by will or otherwise, making it property passing on her death under Section 6 of the Estate Duty Act.
5. Accountability (Not Pressed):
The question of whether the applicant was an accountable person under Section 53 read with Section 2(12) of the Estate Duty Act was not pressed by the accountable person's advocate.
Conclusion:
The court answered questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. Question 5 was not pressed. The accountable person was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the revenue.
-
1974 (10) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee can be denied the benefit of carry forward of development rebate.
2. Whether the Income-tax Officer should determine the development rebate and allow it to be carried forward and set off in subsequent years when profits are available and the necessary reserve is created.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Denial of Benefit of Carry Forward of Development Rebate:
The court examined the historical background of development rebate provisions under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax Act, 1961. Initially, there was no provision for development rebate, which was introduced by the Finance Act, 1955. The development rebate was allowed as a deduction for new machinery or plant installed after March 31, 1954. The proviso required that no allowance for development rebate could be made unless the prescribed particulars for depreciation allowance were furnished by the assessee. This provision continued until 1958 when the Finance Act, 1958, introduced a new clause allowing for the carry forward of development rebate for up to eight years if not fully utilized in the year of installation.
The court referenced decisions from various High Courts, including the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Veeraswami Nainar and Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which emphasized that development rebate should be allowed only if the reserve was created in the year of installation. The Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax affirmed this view, stating that the creation of the reserve was a condition precedent for obtaining the allowance of development rebate.
The court also discussed the Explanation added to section 34(3)(a) by the Finance Act, 1966, which clarified that the deduction should not be denied merely because the amount credited to the reserve exceeded the profits of the relevant previous year. This indicated that the reserve could be created by book entries without actual funds backing it.
The court concluded that the reserve must be created in the year of installation by debiting the profit and loss account and crediting the reserve account. If this is not done, the development rebate cannot be allowed, and consequently, it cannot be carried forward to subsequent years.
2. Determination and Carry Forward of Development Rebate:
The court analyzed section 33(1) and section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which stipulated that development rebate should be allowed as a deduction in the computation of profits for the previous year in which the machinery or plant was installed, subject to the provisions of section 34. The conditions laid down in section 34, including the creation of a reserve, were not mere formalities but essential requirements.
The court rejected the argument that the reserve could be created in any subsequent year within the statutory period of eight years. It emphasized that the reserve must be created in the year of installation before the profit and loss account is finalized. The court pointed out that the carry forward provisions under section 33(2) come into play only after the development rebate has been allowed in the year of installation. If the total income for the relevant previous year is nil or shows a loss, the development rebate to the extent not allowed is carried forward to the next year.
The court highlighted that the consistent scheme of eight years for carry forward, utilization of reserve, and the period before which the machinery or plant should not be sold indicated a legislative intent to maintain a uniform period for all related purposes. Allowing the reserve to be created in subsequent years would disrupt this scheme.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee was required to create the reserve in the year of installation to claim the development rebate, and failure to do so meant the rebate could not be carried forward. The court also granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court due to the conflict of decisions on this issue.
-
1974 (10) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the seizure of money by the Income-tax Officer.
3. Applicability of sub-section (3) of Section 132 in cases where a search was unnecessary.
4. Validity of the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer in issuing notices and orders under Section 132.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 132, particularly sub-section (1)(c), which deals with the conditions under which the Income-tax authorities can conduct searches and seizures. The court emphasized that the section must be read in its entirety to understand the legislative intent. The section allows the Income-tax Officer to enter and search any building or place where there is reason to suspect that undisclosed income or property is kept. The court highlighted that the term "search" should not be given a far too technical meaning but should be understood in its general sense as "to look for" or "to seek."
2. Legality of the Seizure of Money by the Income-tax Officer:
The petitions challenged the legality of the seizure of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,010.15 by the Income-tax Officer. The court noted that the amounts were initially seized by the Central Excise Department and the Enforcement Directorate under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, respectively. However, once the investigations under these acts were complete, the officers holding the money were in the position of bailees and were holding the money on behalf of the individuals from whom it was seized. The court concluded that under sub-section (1)(c) of Section 132, the Income-tax Officer could lawfully seize these amounts from the authorities holding them.
3. Applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 132 in Cases Where a Search Was Unnecessary:
The argument presented was that sub-section (3) of Section 132, which allows for the issuance of an order to hold money or other articles, is inapplicable in cases where a search was unnecessary. The court referenced decisions from the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts, which supported this view. However, the court disagreed with these interpretations, stating that the primary power conferred by Section 132 is the power of seizure, and the ancillary powers of search and breaking locks are merely means to facilitate this primary power. The court opined that it would be unrealistic to insist on a physical search when the money was already known to be in possession of an authority.
4. Validity of the Procedure Adopted by the Income-tax Officer in Issuing Notices and Orders Under Section 132:
The petitioners argued that the procedure adopted by the Income-tax Officer, including the issuance of notices under Rule 112A and orders under sub-section (15) of Section 132, was unwarranted by law. The court examined the notices and orders, concluding that they were validly issued to demand the handover of the money to the Income-tax Officer. The court also noted that actual searches were conducted, and seizures were made, as evidenced by the panchanamas. The court found no illegality in the proceedings and upheld the actions taken by the Income-tax Officer.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the procedures adopted by the Income-tax Officer were lawful and justified under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the section should be interpreted in a manner that reflects its legislative intent and that the ancillary powers of search and seizure are meant to facilitate the primary power of seizure. The court also noted that any irregularities in the course of the search and seizure would not vitiate the actions taken, provided they were executed bona fide.
-
1974 (10) TMI 24
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the letter of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 13, 1968, amounts to an order under section 271(4A).
2. Whether the Commissioner had reduced or waived the penalty below the minimum provided for under the statute and restricted it to 20% of the tax attributable to the income from New Bharat Transporters.
3. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax had waived the penalty imposable on the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the letter of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 13, 1968, amounts to an order under section 271(4A):
The Tribunal initially refused to regard the letter as an order under section 271(4A) on two grounds: the conditions mentioned in this section had not been fulfilled, and there was no intention to grant a reduction or waiver of the penalty. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that section 271(4A) was a beneficial provision meant to facilitate voluntary disclosures of concealed income. The court emphasized that the term "imposable" refers to the liability to pay penalty incurred at the time of filing an incomplete return, not merely when the penalty is levied. The court concluded that the letter from the Commissioner, which included the assessees' proposals and the Commissioner's conditions, constituted an order under section 271(4A).
2. Whether the Commissioner had reduced or waived the penalty below the minimum provided for under the statute and restricted it to 20% of the tax attributable to the income from New Bharat Transporters:
The court noted that the Commissioner had ample powers under section 271(4A) to either waive the penalty completely or reduce it substantially. The letter from the Commissioner indicated a minimum penalty of 20% on the income of New Bharat Transporters, demonstrating the Commissioner's intention to reduce the penalty. The court held that the penalty would be restricted to 20% of the tax attributable to the income of New Bharat Transporters for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68. The acceptance of the Commissioner's proposals by the assessees culminated in an order under section 271(4A), which is binding on the revenue and cannot be questioned.
3. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax had waived the penalty imposable on the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65:
The court rejected the argument that the amendment to section 271(4A) would not apply to the assessment year 1964-65, stating that the amendment was a beneficial provision in a procedural law and would apply to pending proceedings. The penalty proceedings were initiated after the amendment came into force, making the amendment applicable. The court affirmed that the letter from the Commissioner constituted an order under section 271(4A) and that the penalty for the assessment year 1964-65 was waived as part of the settlement.
Conclusion:
Both questions framed by the Tribunal were answered in the affirmative. The letter from the Commissioner was deemed an order under section 271(4A), and the penalty was restricted to 20% of the tax attributable to the income of New Bharat Transporters. The references were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1974 (10) TMI 23
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessments under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Obligation of the assessee to disclose material facts in the return.
3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings.
4. Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Reopening Assessments under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The company was initially assessed for the years 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53, where it was allowed initial and normal depreciation. However, in the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, and 1958-59, the depreciation allowances exceeded the original cost of the machinery, contrary to clause (c) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Notices were issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to reopen the assessments. The company contested these notices, arguing that there was no failure on its part to disclose material facts fully and truly.
2. Obligation of the Assessee to Disclose Material Facts in the Return:
The company argued that it had correctly filled in the return and disclosed all required information. The learned single judge agreed that the company had disclosed the written down value of the machinery correctly and that there was no column in the return requiring the disclosure of initial depreciation allowed in earlier years. The Supreme Court remanded the case to determine whether the company's omission or failure to disclose material facts led to income escaping assessment or excessive depreciation allowance.
3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Initiate Reassessment Proceedings:
The Supreme Court noted that section 34 of the Income-tax Act conferred jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice for reassessment if two conditions were met: (1) the officer had reason to believe that income had been under-assessed, and (2) the under-assessment occurred due to the assessee's omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Division Bench had not considered whether the income escaped assessment due to the company's failure to disclose material facts. Upon remand, it was found that the company had no obligation to disclose information not required by the prescribed form of return, and the Income-tax Officer had not asked for additional information.
4. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The reassessment orders dated February 10, 1969, led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the company's alleged wrongful claim of depreciation. The company challenged these proceedings, arguing that the reassessment itself was without jurisdiction. The court held that since the reassessment was without jurisdiction, the penalty proceedings consequential to it would also fail.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no failure on the part of the company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment. Consequently, the conditions for reopening the assessments under section 147(1)(a) did not exist, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed. The penalty proceedings initiated as a consequence of these reassessments were also quashed. The company was entitled to costs from the respondents in each of the six cases.
............
|
9911796707
