Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1953 1953 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 28 of 28 Records

• 1953 (12) TMI 17
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of registration effectiveness and sales tax liability under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
  2. Understanding the term "contract" in the proviso to section 4(1) of the Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The first issue pertains to the registration status and sales tax liability of a dealer under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The case involved a registered dealer who made sales to an unregistered dealer, referred to as dealer B, during a specific accounting period. Dealer B later compounded the offense under section 25(1) and obtained a registration certificate. The question was whether sales made to dealer B before registration should be considered sales to a registered dealer for tax purposes. Section 8(1) of the Act mandates registration for dealers liable to pay tax, with a deadline for applications. The contention was that upon compounding the offense, dealer B should be deemed registered from the Act's commencement, making sales to him deductible from the assessee's taxable turnover under section 2(j)(a)(ii). The court upheld this argument, emphasizing the statutory provisions and the deemed registration fiction under sub-section (5) of section 8.
  
  Issue 2:
  The second issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "contract" in the proviso to section 4(1) of the Act concerning sales tax exemptions. The case involved sales agreements made before the Act's commencement, with goods delivered and payment received post-enactment. The assessee contended that these sales were exempt under the proviso, claiming they were part of pre-existing contracts. However, the court rejected this argument, citing the statutory definition of "contract" under section 2(b) of the Act, which includes specific types of agreements not applicable to the transactions in question. The court emphasized that the exemption under the proviso is limited to contracts falling within the Act's defined scope, clarifying that the term "contract" in this context should be understood as per the Act's definition in section 2(b).
  
  In conclusion, the court provided detailed reasoning for its decisions on both issues, emphasizing the statutory framework and definitions within the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The judgment clarified the legal implications of registration, sales tax liability, and the interpretation of key terms within the Act, ensuring adherence to the legislative intent and established legal principles.

  ---

• 1953 (12) TMI 16
  
  Issues:
  1. Requirement of license for a commission agent under Mysore Sales Tax Act.
  2. Whether Section 9 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act is a charging section.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Mysore High Court addressed the two questions referred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The first issue revolved around whether a commission agent, licensed by the Regulated Market, needed a license under Section 9 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act to avoid being taxed as a dealer. The facts presented highlighted the role of the commission agent in facilitating the sale of goods brought to the market by sellers. The Court analyzed the definition of a "dealer" under Section 2 of the Act, emphasizing that a person must be engaged in the business of buying or selling goods to be considered a dealer. The Court differentiated between a commission agent and a broker, noting that the former exercises control over goods and has the authority to pass property to buyers, which was not the case for the assessed individual. Drawing on precedents from the Madras High Court, the judgment concluded that the assessed individual, acting as a broker, did not meet the criteria of a dealer and, therefore, was not liable for taxation under Section 3 of the Act.
  
  Moving on to the second issue, the Court examined whether Section 9 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act functioned as a charging section. The judgment clarified that Section 9 provided for the exemption from taxation for those holding a license, but the crucial factor for taxation was whether an individual qualified as a "dealer," not merely holding a license. The Court emphasized that the absence of a license did not automatically render one liable for taxation; the determining factor was the individual's status as a dealer. Consequently, the Court answered both questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessed individual. The judgment highlighted the distinction between a commission agent and a broker, emphasizing that the assessed individual's role aligned more with that of a broker, exempting them from taxation under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the reference was answered in the negative.

  ---

• 1953 (12) TMI 15
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of statutory notice of demand.
  2. Bona fide dispute about the alleged dues.
  3. Whether the company was unable to pay its debts.
  4. Whether the substratum of the company was gone.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Statutory Notice of Demand:
  The appellant argued that there had been no valid statutory notice of demand. The court noted that the registered office of the Railway Company was situated at No. 136 Canning Street, Calcutta. The notice of demand dated June 6, 1950, was addressed to "Fraser Road, Patna," which was not the registered office. This fact was sufficient to prevent the Union of India from relying upon the notice for the purposes of section 163(1)(i) of the Indian Companies Act. Although a second notice was delivered at the registered office on June 30, 1950, the interval between this notice and the petition for winding up on July 18 was less than three weeks, thus invalidating it as a statutory notice. The court concluded that the Union of India could not rely on any statutory notice of demand, eliminating presumptive or constructive liability to pay the debts under section 163(1)(i).
  
  2. Bona Fide Dispute About the Alleged Dues:
  The appellant contended that there was a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged dues. The court observed that the Union of India demanded a sum of Rs. 5,91,784-2-0, and the Bengal Nagpur Railway Administration also claimed Rs. 1,78,498-14-0. However, the appellant company had admitted assets of Rs. 10,00,623. The court found it impossible for the Union of India to argue that the company was unable to pay its debts when it had sufficient assets to cover the claimed amounts. The court held that the case was not one of inability to pay but rather a failure or neglect to pay, which required a closer examination of facts. The court concluded that the company was not unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 162(v) of the Companies Act.
  
  3. Whether the Company Was Unable to Pay Its Debts:
  The court examined whether the company was unable to pay its debts. The Union of India failed to establish that the company was unable to pay its debts, considering the company's admitted assets exceeded the claimed debts. The court referenced Palmer's Company Law, noting that commercial solvency is recognized by company law. However, the court found that the Union of India could not prove the company's inability to pay its debts, given the admitted assets of Rs. 10,00,623 against a debt of Rs. 8,00,000.
  
  4. Whether the Substratum of the Company Was Gone:
  The Union of India argued that the substratum of the company was gone, making it just and equitable to pass a winding up order. The court expressed doubt about whether a creditor could ordinarily urge this ground, as it is typically a concern for shareholders and contributories. The court referenced the case In re Eastern Telegraph Co. Ltd., noting that the circumstances were similar. The court found that the transaction of acquisition had not been completed, as the compensation amount was not finally settled or accepted. The court emphasized that it was preferable for the directors of the company to negotiate the compensation rather than an official liquidator. The court concluded that there was no equity in making a winding up order when the debt was not in peril, and the company's assets were sufficient to cover the debts.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was allowed, the order of Mr. Justice Bachawat dated August 29, 1950, was set aside, and the application for a winding up order made by the Union of India on July 18, 1950, was dismissed. The court noted that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the appellant-company was infirm and not fit to be looked at. Although the appellant-company was awarded the costs of the appeal, there was no order for costs at the trial court. The judgment was certified for two counsel in the appeal.

  ---

• 1953 (12) TMI 14
  
  Issues:
  1. Winding up of a company due to default in payment of debts.
  2. Discretion of the court in granting a winding up order.
  3. Rights of a secured creditor in presenting a winding up petition.
  4. Consideration of the benefit to creditors in a winding up order.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment involves an appeal against the winding up order of a company due to default in payment of debts. The company, a public limited company, borrowed a sum secured by a mortgage from the respondent. The respondent filed for winding up under sections 162 and 166 of the Indian Companies Act, citing the company's inability to pay debts and mismanagement. The court considered the suspension of production and inability to pay debts as grounds for winding up, appointing the Official Receiver as the liquidator.
  
  The appellant's counsel argued against the winding up order, emphasizing that the respondent, a secured creditor, had sufficient security and no other creditor supported the petition. Citing legal precedents, the counsel contended that a winding up order should not be granted if the creditor can realize their security and no practical benefit would result from the winding up. The court referred to a similar case where a winding up petition was dismissed due to the opposition of other creditors and lack of practical benefit.
  
  The court acknowledged the general rule that a creditor has a right to a winding up order but highlighted that this right is subject to the court's discretion. It was noted that a winding up order should benefit the creditors generally, not just the petitioning creditor. The court concluded that in this case, where only the respondent would benefit from the winding up order, and other creditors opposed it, the order would not serve the general interest of creditors. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the winding up order and directing the official liquidator not to hand over possession of the company's properties for three months.

  ---

• 1953 (12) TMI 4
  

  The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Bangalore, to assess the appellant to income-tax and super-tax on his income accruing prior to 1st April, 1950, in the State of Mysore challenged

  Held that:- We find nothing in Article 277 of the Constitution to preclude Parliament making a law providing for the levy and collection of income-tax and super-tax under the Mysore Act through authorities appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we hold that the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Bangalore, had jurisdiction to assess the appellant to income-tax and super-tax in respect of the income of the period prior to the commencement of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1953 (12) TMI 3
  

  Whether Rajasthan became taxable territory during the financial year in this case, i.e., 1949-50?

  Whether the petitioner must be held to be immune from liability to assessment on the income of that year?

  Held that:- The difference in the constitutional position which previously existed between the Provinces and the acceding States has thus disappeared except, of course, in regard to matters in which such distinction has been preserved by the Constitution itself, e. g., by Article 238 and Article 371. It follows that the amendment of Section 2, clause (14-A), of the Indian Act by the Finance Act, 1950, so as to authorise the levy of tax on income accruing in the territory of Rajasthan in the year 1949-50, is within the competence of Parliament and therefore valid.

  ---

• 1953 (12) TMI 2
  

  Whether Section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act has application to the case of a resident assessee or whether its scope is limited to non-resident assessee alone?

  Held that:- The answer returned by the High Court of Bombay to the question referred to it was wrong. We therefore allow this appeal with costs and answer this question referred to the High Court in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1953 (12) TMI 1
  

  Whether in view of the finding of fact in this case that the entire profits were received in India and the company is liable to tax under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the provisions of Section 42(1) have any relevancy ?

  Can the income received in India be said to arise in India within the meaning of Section 4A(c)(b) of the Act ? If not, should only those profits determined under Section 42(3) as attributable to the operations carried out in India be taken into account for applying the test laid down in Section 4A(c)(b) ?

  Held that:- Answer to question No. 1 in the negative.

  Answer to question No. 2 - The income received in British India cannot be said to wholly arise in India within the meaning of Section 4A(c)(b) of the Act and that there should be allocation of the income between the various business operations of the assessee company demarcating the income arising in the taxable territories in the particular year from the income arising without the taxable territories in that year for the purposes of Section 4A(c)(b) of the Act. Appeal allowed.

  ---

12