|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 2934 Records
-
1989 (11) TMI 17
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses two main issues:
1. Whether the oil mill operated by the assessee constitutes a separate business or is part of the same business involving oil and oil seeds.
2. Whether the payment of retrenchment compensation is allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 1 - Oil Mill Business Classification:
The Commissioner of income tax contended that the oil mill was a separate business and not part of the assessee's main business, leading to the disallowance of retrenchment compensation as a deduction. The Appellate Tribunal applied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court to determine if the oil mill was a separate business. It found unity of control, interlacing of funds, and centralized finance from the head office, concluding that the oil mill was only a branch and not a separate business. The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing that the maintenance of separate accounts alone does not establish a separate business entity.
Issue 2 - Deductibility of Retrenchment Compensation:
The Appellate Tribunal held that the payment of retrenchment compensation was a permissible deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act as it was necessitated by the closure of the oil mill, which served the purpose of the business. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the High Court, stating that the compensation was allowable as a deduction since it was incurred for the business's benefit.
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, stating that the Tribunal correctly applied the Supreme Court's tests and there was no error of law in the decision. The Court emphasized the unity of control and interlacing of funds as key factors in determining that the oil mill was not a separate business. The judgment favored the assessee, allowing the retrenchment compensation as a deductible expense under section 37 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1989 (11) TMI 16
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1970-71.
2. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1970-71.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around two main questions framed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The first issue was whether income accrued to the assessee under section 41(2) of the Act for the assessment year 1970-71. The second issue was whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment for the same year under section 147(a) of the Act.
The facts of the case revealed that the assessee, a limited company engaged in electricity supply, had its original assessment for the year 1970-71 completed with "nil" total income. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment, claiming that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner later taxed an amount under section 41(2) based on the takeover of machinery and plant by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. The dispute arose from the timing of when the income was deemed to have accrued to the assessee.
The assessee argued that it had disclosed all necessary information regarding compensation received in its balance sheets and had informed the Income-tax Officer prior to the end of the relevant accounting period. The Tribunal noted two key arguments made by the assessee: continuous disclosure of asset values and compensation in balance sheets and the finalization of awards for the undertakings. However, the Tribunal did not provide a clear finding on the disclosure aspect, leading to a need for further clarification.
The High Court emphasized the importance of determining whether the assessee had consistently disclosed asset values and compensation in balance sheets. This finding was deemed crucial to understanding the accrual of income under section 41(2) of the Act. The Court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to provide a detailed statement with findings on this disclosure aspect to resolve the interlinked issues effectively.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the necessity of establishing whether the assessee had fulfilled its disclosure obligations regarding compensation received, which would impact the determination of income accrual under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Court's decision to seek further clarification from the Tribunal underscored the significance of this disclosure in resolving the legal complexities surrounding the assessment and reopening of the case.
-
1989 (11) TMI 15
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the time limit for declaring losses.
2. Entitlement of the assessee to carry forward the loss under the Act as per the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970.
3. Impact of the amendment of section 139(1) on the decision regarding carry forward of losses.
4. Consideration of minority judgment in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 and the view expressed by Mr. Justice R. S. Pathak in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1 (SC) in relation to carry forward of losses.
5. Application of section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for carry forward and set off of business losses.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a question of law referred to the High Court by the Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the assessee to carry forward a loss under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue arose due to the Income-tax Officer disallowing the claim for carry forward based on the non-filing of the return of income within the time limit specified in section 139(3) of the Act.
2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the carry forward of the loss, citing precedents such as CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 and Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 838. The Tribunal upheld this decision despite the amendment of section 139(1) post-1976, stating that the principle laid down in the Presidency Medical Centre case remained valid.
3. The Revenue contended that the decision was not valid based on the minority judgment in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 and the view expressed by Mr. Justice R. S. Pathak in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1 (SC). However, the High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the applicability of the carry forward of losses post the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970.
4. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's reliance on the minority judgment and emphasized that the return was filed within the extended period, as accepted by the Income-tax Officer, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance on considering returns filed within the extended period. The Court reiterated the provisions of section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which govern the carry forward and set off of business losses.
5. Ultimately, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee's entitlement to carry forward the loss as per the provisions of section 72 of the Act. Both judges, BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE and SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, concurred on this decision, upholding the assessee's right to carry forward the loss for the specified assessment year.
-
1989 (11) TMI 14
Issues Involved:
1. Correct construction of the agreement dated September 2, 1963, and whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law.
2. Allowability of the payment of Rs. 10,19,693 as revenue expenditure.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Correct Construction of the Agreement Dated September 2, 1963:
The Tribunal examined whether the Commissioner of Income-tax's conclusion that the assessee started a new line of production and obtained a benefit of enduring nature was misconceived. The Tribunal found that the assessee had acquired a license for the use of know-how and that the payment in question was made under the licensing agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure did not result in the acquisition of a capital asset and was allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal considered several points: the nature of the agreement, the proprietary rights remaining with the foreign company, and the specific provision that technical information would remain the property of the foreign company.
2. Allowability of the Payment of Rs. 10,19,693 as Revenue Expenditure:
The Tribunal determined that the payment of Rs. 10,19,693 made by the assessee to the foreign company was allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal considered the following points:
- The agreement involved two types of expenditure, with the initial expenditure up to June 1968 treated as capital expenditure, and subsequent royalty payments treated as revenue expenditure.
- The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of other types of bearings since 1950, and the royalty payments were related solely to the production and manufacture of tapered bearings.
- The proprietary rights and ownership of patents and know-how remained with the foreign company, with the assessee merely having a license to use the patents.
- The technical know-how provided by the foreign company was utilized in making new types of bearings, but this did not make the royalty payments capital expenditure.
- The agreement specified that the technical information would remain the property of the foreign company, and the assessee did not acquire any asset of enduring advantage.
The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd., which held that payments for the use of technical knowledge and experience were allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure because the assessee had started a new line of business. The Tribunal concluded that the royalty payments were for the user of technical know-how and information, not for the acquisition of any asset, and should be treated as revenue expenditure.
Conclusion:
Both questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision that the expenditure was allowable as business expenditure was upheld, and there was no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Deductibility of contribution to trusts for employees' welfare as per Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involves a question of law regarding the deductibility of a contribution made by an assessee to two trusts for the welfare of its employees. The assessee, a limited company, increased its subscribed capital to comply with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and created two trusts for employees' benefits. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that the contribution was solely for purchasing equity shares and not utilized for employees' welfare. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted no income derived by the trusts initially. However, the Tribunal found that the contribution was allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act as it was for the welfare of employees, rejecting the Revenue's argument that the amount was only a donation. The Tribunal emphasized the close nexus between the expenditure and business expediency.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the contribution was for the welfare of employees, essential for maintaining loyalty and sincerity among them. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was exclusively for business purposes, as it was intended to benefit the employees. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the welfare of employees to ensure their loyalty and productivity. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing the intimate connection between the expenditure incurred by the assessee and business expediency. The judgment did not delve into the specific utilization of the funds by the trusts but focused on the purpose of the contribution for employees' welfare.
The judgment also discussed the creation of the trusts, the beneficiaries, and the objects outlined in the trust deeds. The trusts were established to provide various benefits to employees and their families, including education, healthcare, and recreational facilities. The judgment highlighted the lack of remuneration for trustees and the specific nature of the trust funds' utilization for employees' welfare. Despite the unusual features of the trusts, the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction was based on the overarching goal of promoting employees' welfare, aligning with the business's interests.
In conclusion, the judgment upheld the deductibility of the contribution made by the assessee to the trusts for employees' welfare, emphasizing the close connection between the expenditure and business expediency. The decision focused on the importance of considering employees' welfare for business sustainability and loyalty. The Tribunal's findings of fact supported the allowance of the deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.
-
1989 (11) TMI 12
Issues:
Interpretation of liability under the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 for a partner of a tax consultancy firm.
Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether a partner of a firm engaging in tax consultancy is liable to pay professional tax both as an individual and on behalf of the firm under the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976. The respondent had issued a show-cause notice to the appellant for not enrolling himself under the Act despite the firm being enrolled. The appellant argued that the firm's payment should cover his liability and that taxing him separately would result in double taxation. The learned single judge held that a partner is a separate legal entity from the firm and can be taxed in both capacities. The judge relied on the Act's provisions and a Supreme Court decision to support this conclusion.
The appellant contended that the single judge's view was not supported by the Act's provisions and contradicted Supreme Court decisions. The charging section of the Act mandates tax on persons carrying on professions listed in the Schedule, including natural persons, firms, and other entities. The Schedule specifies rates for different professions, with entry 20 covering firms engaged in professions. The appellant claimed to practice tax consultancy only through the firm, not individually. Therefore, he should be taxed under entry 20. The court emphasized that a firm and its partners are not separate entities for tax purposes unless specific provisions exist for double taxation. The court referenced Supreme Court cases to support its interpretation and highlighted that the Act's amendment in 1989 made partners liable for tax, reinforcing the view that prior to the amendment, partners were not individually liable.
The court disagreed with the single judge's interpretation and set aside the order, quashing the proceedings requiring the appellant to enroll individually. The court held that partners of firms engaging in professions should not be taxed separately under the Act before the 1989 amendment. The judgment clarified that the Act did not provide for double taxation of the same profession in the hands of both a firm and its partners. Consequently, the court allowed the writ appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that the appellant was not individually liable for professional tax under the Act.
-
1989 (11) TMI 11
The High Court of Karnataka partially allowed the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of rule 9(c) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1957. The assessments were quashed regarding the inclusion of income as back pool payment by the Coffee Board, and the matter was remanded for reassessment. The constitutional validity of rule 9(c) of the Rules was upheld.
-
1989 (11) TMI 10
Issues:
1. Justification of canceling penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the cancellation of a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had concealed income of Rs. 1,75,000 by providing false explanations. The Tribunal, in its order dated January 14, 1975, held that the penalty was not leviable as there was no concrete evidence to prove that the disputed amounts constituted the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), emphasizing that the mere falsity of the explanation given by the assessee does not automatically establish the receipt as taxable income. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue to demonstrate deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
In subsequent cases like D. M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC), it was established that penalty could be justified if there was relevant material indicating deliberate concealment, not merely based on the falsity of the explanation provided during assessment. The court also referred to P.M. A. P. Ayyamperumal Nadar v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 161 (Mad), emphasizing that evidence from the original assessment proceedings can be considered in penalty proceedings, but penalty cannot be solely based on assessment findings.
The court highlighted cases like Kandaswami Pillai v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 612 (Mad) and V. P. Samtani v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 693 (Cal), where penalties were upheld for concealing income under section 271(1)(c). Additionally, in L. K. Shaik Mohd. Bros. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 808 (Mad), it was clarified that the burden of proof is on the Revenue, but penalty can be justified if there is a finding of conscious concealment based on evidence.
The court criticized the Tribunal for overlooking crucial evidence and detailed reasons provided by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner while canceling the penalty. The Tribunal failed to consider the conduct of the assessee, inconsistencies in explanations, and relevant evidence supporting the penalty imposition. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was unjustified, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence and findings before overturning penalty decisions.
Therefore, the court answered the referred question in the negative, indicating that the penalty cancellation was not justified based on the evidence and legal principles discussed in the judgment.
-
1989 (11) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement for the Commissioner to provide reasons in an order passed under Section 273A.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Scope of Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The judgment examines the discretionary power vested in the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows for the reduction or waiver of penalties and interest under certain conditions. The court outlines that the Commissioner may exercise this discretion if the following conditions are met:
- The taxpayer has voluntarily and in good faith made a full and true disclosure of income before the issuance of a notice under Section 139(2) or Section 148.
- The taxpayer has co-operated in any inquiry relating to the assessment of income.
- The taxpayer has paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable.
The judgment emphasizes that the power conferred under Section 273A is quasi-judicial and must be exercised judiciously, reasonably, and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The court refers to several precedents, including:
- Kundan Lal Behari Lal v. CWT [1975]: The Allahabad High Court held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the section as the notice issued under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act was not served.
- Shakuntla Mehra v. CWT [1976]: The Delhi High Court held that if the conditions mentioned in Section 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act are fulfilled, the Commissioner was bound to waive or reduce penalty.
- Seetha Mahalakshmi Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT [1981]: The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Commissioner must exercise discretion judiciously and not arbitrarily.
2. Requirement for the Commissioner to Provide Reasons in an Order Passed under Section 273A:
The court considers whether the Commissioner is bound to provide reasons for his decision under Section 273A. The judgment notes that while Sub-section (4) of Section 273A explicitly requires the recording of reasons, Sub-section (1) does not. However, the court holds that given the quasi-judicial nature of the Commissioner's function under Sub-section (1), the duty to provide reasons should be implied. This ensures transparency and accountability, preventing arbitrary or capricious decisions.
The court references several cases to support this view:
- Sardar Kartar Singh v. CWT [1982]: The Gauhati High Court held that the Commissioner must provide reasons to avoid arbitrary use of power.
- Mohammed Ali v. CWT [1983]: The Gauhati High Court quashed an order reducing penalty without reasons and directed the Commissioner to decide afresh.
- CIT v. Hindusthan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd. [1989]: The Calcutta High Court held that a non-speaking order under Section 216 is invalid and must be quashed.
The court concludes that the impugned order by the Commissioner, which waived 50% of the penalty and interest without providing reasons, is invalid. The judgment states:
"No doubt, as contended by learned standing counsel for the Revenue, the Commissioner has applied his mind which is reflected in the reduction of penalty to 50 per cent., yet the order suffers from the vice of absence of reasons."
Conclusion:
The court quashes the impugned order and directs the Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh, providing appropriate reasons for any decision made. The writ petition is allowed without costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 8
The High Court of Kerala upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act for the entire business income. The court referred to previous decisions regarding the processing of prawns as production of articles, qualifying as an industrial undertaking under section 80J. The question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The judgment will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (11) TMI 7
Issues:
1. Taxability of income from vacant lands in the hands of a company when legal ownership vests in individual family members.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the taxability of income from vacant lands at Howrah in the hands of a company, despite legal ownership residing with individual family members. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed the income from vacant lands in the hands of the individual family members on a protective basis. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment, citing the company's possession of the right to rental income from the lands, even without a formal deed of conveyance. The Tribunal also affirmed the assessment, emphasizing that ownership of assets was not a prerequisite for taxing income from other sources. The Tribunal noted that the company had correctly included the income from the lands in its books and had benefited from using the lands with the consent of the family members.
The court considered the partial partition of the family's property, leading to the formation of a company where the family members agreed to transfer properties in exchange for shares. Despite the absence of a formal deed of conveyance, the court applied the doctrine of partial performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to deem the income as chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act. The court distinguished this case from precedent involving family arrangements, emphasizing the formal transfer of property to the company and the issuance of shares as consideration. Additionally, the court rejected the applicability of case law concerning income application and diversion, highlighting the company's possession and enjoyment of the property's income.
Furthermore, the court addressed the provisions of section 60 of the Act, clarifying that the income was received by the company after the transfer of the property, not merely by virtue of a transfer of income. As the company continued to possess the property and derive income from it, the court ruled that section 60 did not apply. Ultimately, the court answered the referred question in favor of the Revenue, affirming the taxability of the company's income from the property.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the tax treatment of income from vacant lands held by a company despite legal ownership residing with individual family members. The court emphasized the company's possession and enjoyment of the income, the doctrine of partial performance, and the inapplicability of certain case laws and statutory provisions, ultimately upholding the assessment of the income in the company's hands under the Income-tax Act.
-
1989 (11) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Allowability of loss in exchange on remittance of profits for non-resident companies in computing business income for taxation.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the loss in exchange on remittance of profits by non-resident companies is an allowable deduction in computing business income for taxation. The Tribunal referred the question to the High Court, emphasizing the facts where non-resident companies transmitted profits to the United Kingdom and claimed losses due to exchange rate variations. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the losses, stating they were not related to the business. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claims, considering the losses as notional. The Tribunal also dismissed the claims, highlighting that the income earned in India, to be assessed in India, was in rupees, and the exchange losses occurred after the income was earned. The judgment cited the Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. case, where a similar principle was upheld regarding the impact of Indian rupee devaluation on business profits assessed in India. The court concluded that the loss claimed by the non-resident companies was not allowable, aligning with the reasoning provided by the authorities below.
The judgment differentiated the case from CIT v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., where losses due to remitting monies from India to England for dividend obligations were allowed as expenditure. However, the court found the facts in the present case akin to Namdang Tea Co. Ltd., where the impact of devaluation on business profits assessed in India was deemed irrelevant to the calculation of income. Consequently, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the destination or calculation of income in England in pound sterling does not affect the income of the assessee in India. The judgment was a unanimous decision by the judges, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 5
Issues:
Interpretation of damages under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as penalty or compensation.
Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta was presented with a question regarding the nature of an extra payment made by a company to the Provident Fund authorities for not making timely payments of provident fund dues. The Tribunal had to determine whether this payment of Rs. 7,249 was in the form of a penalty or compensation to the Government. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision involving damages under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, where it was held that such damages were compensation paid to the Government, not penalties. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that damages were meant to compensate for delayed payments rather than penalize the employer for non-compliance with payment obligations.
In a previous case, the High Court had considered a similar issue regarding interest payments under a different Act. The court had ruled that interest payments for delayed cess payment were not penalties but compensatory in nature, following a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court had analyzed the provisions of the relevant Act and concluded that the interest paid was an automatic accretion to the cess liability, not a penalty for non-compliance. This interpretation was crucial in determining the deductibility of interest payments in computing business income.
The Court also examined the conflicting interpretations of damages under section 14B by different High Courts. Some courts viewed damages as compensation for actual losses suffered by beneficiaries, while others considered damages as penalties for breaching statutory obligations. The Supreme Court, in a separate case, clarified that damages under section 14B served dual purposes: penalizing defaulting employers and compensating employees for losses. The Supreme Court's interpretation highlighted that damages were not solely meant to compensate beneficiaries but also to warn employers against non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Given the complexity and differing interpretations surrounding damages under section 14B, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for further consideration. The Tribunal was directed to reevaluate the case in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Organo Chemical Industries, which emphasized the dual nature of damages under section 14B. The Tribunal was instructed to assess whether the entire sum imposed on the company was purely punitive or served the dual purposes of penalizing default and compensating for losses suffered by employees.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between penalties and compensatory payments under statutory provisions like section 14B. The case underscored the need for a nuanced understanding of damages to ensure fair treatment of defaulting employers while safeguarding the interests of beneficiaries.
-
1989 (11) TMI 4
The High Court of Rajasthan upheld the charges against the petitioners under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were accused of concealing income related to the manufacturing of precious stones. The court dismissed the petition challenging the charges, stating there was prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners.
-
1989 (11) TMI 3
The Supreme Court granted special leave petition under article 136, set aside the Tribunal's order, and allowed the appeal regarding the accrual of interest on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The assessment will be modified accordingly. No costs were awarded. (Case citation: 1989 (11) TMI 3 - Supreme Court)
-
1989 (11) TMI 2
Acquisition of Land - enhanced compensation - interest on the enhanced compensation - Accrual - held that the interest cannot be taken to have accrued on the date of the order of the court granting enhanced compensation but has to be taken as having accrued year after year from the date of delivery of possession of the lands till the date of such order.
-
1989 (11) TMI 1
Dividends - Whether Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction under section 80K on the gross dividend income without taking into account deduction for interest paid on moneys borrowed specifically for investment in shares - It may be mentioned that the statutory provisions have also been subsequently modified by the insertion of section 80AB with effect from April 1, 1981 - hence question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant
-
1989 (10) TMI 243
The plaintiff filed a suit based on a dishonored cheque for Rs. 4,000 and interest. The defendant claimed he owed Rs. 1,000 to another person and gave a signed cheque leaf as collateral. The lower courts found the evidence unreliable, and the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the due execution of the cheque. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the second appeal was also dismissed with no costs.
-
1989 (10) TMI 242
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Validity of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act for cheques issued before the introduction of the section.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a financial enterprise, issued two cheques to the respondent which were dishonoured by the bank. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner sought to quash the complaint on grounds of jurisdiction and timing of the offence.
2. The cheques were issued in December 1988 and dishonoured in April 1989, with a demand notice issued in May 1989. The petitioner argued that since Section 138 came into force in April 1989, the prosecution for pre-April 1989 cheques was not maintainable. The court addressed the issue of jurisdiction and the timing of the offence under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
3. The court clarified that under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court where the consequences of the offence occur has jurisdiction. The petitioner's failure to appear did not waive the right to challenge jurisdiction. However, the court reserved its final decision on jurisdiction for the trial court.
4. Regarding the timing of the offence, the court analyzed the provisions of Section 138 and its proviso. It emphasized that the offence is the failure to make payment within 15 days of receiving a notice, not the act of drawing the cheque. The court interpreted the legislative intent behind the wording of the section to conclude that the law was in force at the time of the offence, rejecting the petitioner's argument.
5. The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous case, upholding the validity of the prosecution under Section 138 of the Act for the cheques issued before the introduction of the section. The judgment clarified the legal principles surrounding the offence under Section 138 and the jurisdiction of the court to try such cases.
-
1989 (10) TMI 241
Issues Involved:
1. Default in Payment of Rent
2. Illegal Subletting
3. Interpretation of Amended Provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
4. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution
5. Relief against Forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act
6. High Court's Jurisdiction in Reversing Findings of Fact
7. Possession of Defendant No. 6 on the Relevant Date
8. Reopening and Hearing of Writ Petitions by the High Court
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Default in Payment of Rent:
The tenants were found to be defaulters in payment of rent for more than six months, and they did not pay the arrears within one month of the notice of demand as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Despite depositing the arrears later, the mandatory provisions of Section 12(3)(a) necessitated a decree for eviction. The Court emphasized that the tenants could not claim protection under Section 12(3)(b) as they did not raise a dispute regarding the standard rent within the stipulated time.
2. Illegal Subletting:
The Trial Court initially found that the tenants had illegally sublet the garage to Defendant No. 6. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser and not a sub-tenant. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the landlord's admission in the pleadings was not binding due to the proviso to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which allows the Court to require proof beyond admissions.
3. Interpretation of Amended Provisions:
The tenants sought the benefit of the amended Sub-section (3) of Section 12, which came into effect on 1st October 1987. The Court held that the amended provisions did not have retrospective effect and could not be applied to the tenants' case. The Court also noted that the tenants did not comply with the requirement of paying simple interest on the arrears as mandated by the amended provision.
4. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution:
The tenants argued for relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to pass orders for complete justice. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Article 142 does not permit the Court to ignore mandatory statutory provisions and thereby cause injustice to the other party.
5. Relief against Forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The tenants contended that they were entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that Section 114 applies to cases of forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act, not to statutory provisions like Section 12 of the Bombay Rents Act.
6. High Court's Jurisdiction in Reversing Findings of Fact:
The High Court reversed the Trial Court's finding that the garage was illegally sublet, ruling that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser. The Supreme Court upheld this reversal, noting that the High Court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the subletting claim and the tenants' consistent assertion that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser.
7. Possession of Defendant No. 6 on the Relevant Date:
The High Court found that Defendant No. 6 was not in possession of the garage on 1st February 1973, as it was under the possession of a court-appointed receiver. The Supreme Court did not delve into this issue further, given the conclusion that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser.
8. Reopening and Hearing of Writ Petitions by the High Court:
Defendant No. 6 challenged the High Court's decision to reopen and hear the writ petitions after delivering its judgment. The Supreme Court found no merit in this challenge, noting that the judgment had only been dictated and not delivered, and the reopening was necessary to address a factual issue regarding the death of a defendant.
Conclusion:
Both appeals were dismissed, with the Supreme Court upholding the High Court's findings on all major issues. The tenants were found to be defaulters in rent payment, and Defendant No. 6 was deemed a trespasser, not entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act. The Court also clarified the limitations of Article 142 and Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act in providing relief in this case.
............
|
9911796707
