|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 41 Records
-
1965 (7) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ations, hair preparations, lipsticks, manicure preparations, rouges, shaving preparations, skin creams, soaps and toilet powders. 8.. It may be-as pointed out by Sutherland-that the rule of ejusdem generis depending as it does on pure form provides a dangerous yardstick with which to measure the statutory coverage which the Legislature intended, and that the rule is a manifestation of the 19th century suspicion of statutory change and insistence on the strictest construction of statutes in derogation of the common law. But that only means that the rule should be applied with care and only to cases where it is clearly applicable. This is a case where it is clearly applicable and on its application there can be no doubt that combs do not come, as already indicated, within entry 48 of Schedule I to the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The T.R.C. has hence to be dismissed and we do so. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a dead law and any proceedings taken thereunder could not be sustained solely for the reason that the declaration that it was unconstitutional was made on a subsequent date. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was in error in not granting the prayer sought. The result is that these petitions succeed. The orders of the Tribunal are quashed. The Tribunal will dispose of the matter afresh and grant the consequential reliefs which the petitioners are entitled to. This petition having been set down this day for being mentioned in the presence of the aforesaid Advocates, the Court made the following order on 13th July, 1965. It is brought to my notice that W.P. No. 1378 of 1962 is directed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the light of the observations contained in the judgment, that order also will stand quashed. It will be open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to deal with the matter afresh. No costs in any of the petitions. Petitions allowed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... used only for the purposes of agriculture. On the facts found by the Tribunal, it must be held that the tractors sold by the assessee were not agricultural machinery or implement . The view expressed by us finds support in the decision of the Bombay High Court in Pashabhai Patel and Co. v. Collector of Sales Tax(1) where it has been held that a tractor is not agricultural machinery . 5.. As tractors are not agricultural machinery or implement and as the Tribunal has not found that the tractors sold by the assessee were farm tractors which could be used only on agricultural land, the sale transactions of tractors effected by the assessee were rightly assessed to tax at the rate of seven per cent. under entry No. 44 of Part II of Schedule II to the Act. 6.. For these reasons, our answer to the question posed before us by the Tribunal is in the affirmative. The assessee shall pay costs of this reference. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 100. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1965 (7) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fer of goods by a club, to its members, have been equated to a sale. The explanation to section 2(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is wider. That explanation is in these terms Explanation.-A society (including a co-operative society), club or firm or an association which, whether or not in the course of busi- ness, buys, sells, supplies or distributes goods from or to its members for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act. 2.. Whatever that be, we are not prepared to say that by virtue of the explanation to section 2(d) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, the transfer or distribution effected by a club to its members consti- tutes a sale. 3.. In the light of the above, we have come to the conclusion that there is no sale involved in the transactions in question and we dismiss this tax revision case. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ned in the following passage Section 2(b) of Act XX of 1954 only refers to cloth etc. made in mills. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that a powerloom is not a mill and the cloth produced on powerlooms would not be liable to the additional tax. No counter-affidavit has been filed controverting this statement that a powerloom is not a mill. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that mill goods would include powerloom goods, as the essential element in both of them would be employment of machinery. I cannot agree. Mill cloth is a familiar variety of cloth and everybody knows what a mill is. In popular language, a powerloom cloth is never associated with a mill cloth. 5.. With great respect we are unable to agree. The distinction is as we have pointed out between cloth manufactured in handlooms and those made with the aid of machinery. 6.. In the result, we allow this tax revision case but make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case where on the facts it could be said that there was suppression of turnover, for the Income-tax Practitioner, who audited the accounts on behalf of the assessee, himself brought it to the notice of the authority the figures which led to the discrepancy between the turnover disclosed in the return and the figures assessed finally. Apparently for this reason, the assessing authority did not think it necessary to levy penalty. In any case, if penalty should form part and parcel of an assessment proceeding and an order of assessment and the officer at the time of making the assessment order was silent about penalty, in our view, it must be taken that the assessing authority had applied its mind but did not think it necessary to levy a penalty. If that is so, the succeeding assessing authority would have no jurisdiction whatever to reopen the earlier assessment order or act independently of it for purposes of levying penalty. The tax revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that he was not liable for the arrears of tax and the whole procedure was contrary to the rules of natural justice. That being so, the proceedings taken against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 5.. Nothing that we have said in this order should be regarded as suggesting that the liability of the petitioner for the arrears of tax should not be ascertained. On the other hand, it is implicit in what we have stated that it would be open to the taxing authorities to proceed against him under section 33(4) of the Act on the basis of properly ascertained facts after giving to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 6.. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The revenue recovery certificate and all proceedings taken thereunder, including the orders dated 7th August, 1964, and 26th October, 1964, are quashed. The respondents shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the petitioner to whom the security amount shall be refunded. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er s Dictionary, means Anything made from raw materials by the hand, by machinery, or by art, as clothes, iron utensils, shoes, machinery, etc. a manual occupation or trade to produce by labour especially now, according to an organised plan and with division of labour and usually with machinery. It seems to us to be un- arguable having regard to the meaning of manufacture that the process employed in converting boulders into small chips of stones with the aid of labour and machinery is not a manufacturing process. Surely labour is em- ployed and something is converted into something else, a product which is of value and is used, and in that sense the chips are a new production as a result of a manufacturing process.We are of opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 15C.The reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Reference answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1965 (7) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bonus or Commission - Assessment year 1949-50 - Assessee company which was following mercantile system of account was claiming deduction of bonus on actual payment basis - Whether liability for payment of bonus is incurred only when conditions for making such claim are satisfied or claim is settled amicable or by industrial adjudication and therefore when liability was unascertained even on mercantile system of accounting it could not be allowed as deduction under section 10(2)(x) of 1922 Act
-
1965 (7) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Advertisement of petition ... ... ... ... ..... rder that it thinks fit or (d)make an order for winding-up the company with or without costs, or any other order that it thinks fit Provided that the court shall not refuse to make a winding-up order on the ground only that the assets of the company have been mortgaged to an amount equal to or in excess of those assets, or that the company has no assets. (2) Where the petition is presented on the ground that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up, the court may refuse to make an order of winding-up, if it is of opinion that some other remedy is available to the petitioners and that they were acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up instead of pursuing that other remedy. ... Having regard to these powers, it cannot be held that there is any force in the contention nor are there any merits in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs of the respondents impleaded in C.M. Ps. Nos. 11817 and 11818 of 1963 and 5900 of 1964.
-
1965 (7) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... en priority. The official liquidator, on the other hand, contend that this amendment came in December, 1960, while the amount became payable to the appellant prior to this amendment. In my view, it is immaterial whether the appellant had a claim to the amount on the rate of the winding up order. What has to be determined is whether the amount is payable at the time when the question arises. Section 530 (1)(b) of the Companies Act does not limit the operation of this provision and states generally that any compensation payable to any workman under any of the provisions of Chapter V-A subject to the limits prescribed in sub-section (2) will have priority. The-limit provided in sub-section (2) is that the amount shall not exceed one thousand rupees. In my view, the appellant is entitled to priority and, since the amount does not exceed Rs. 1000, he shall be given priority in accordance with the provisions of section 530 of the Companies Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Power to summon persons suspected of having property of company, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... ckley on the Companies Acts, and the other is Halsbury s Laws of England. The relevant passage in Buckley appears at page 562 (13th edition) and it runs as follows The only matters as to which the witness can refuse to answer are matters in which he may incriminate himself, and matters involving professional confidence. In Halsbury, 3rd edition, volume 6, paragraph 1218 (relevant portion) runs as follows The witness may, it seems, refuse to answer matters in which he may incriminate himself, and matters involving professional, confidence. The aforesaid passages, if I may state, are based upon an English decision reported as Whitworth s case In re Silkstone and Dodworth Coal and Iron Co. 1881 19 Ch D 118. The applicant can always invoke the court s protection in such matters. In the result, I feel that no case has been made out by the applicant for vacating or modifying the order dated 2nd March, 1963. The judge s summons is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Costs to be taxed.
-
1965 (7) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
Winding up – Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... ure, the judge does not enter into the merits of the order or decree under appeal and all that he is required to consider is the matters enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c ) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of Order 41. Since the single judge does not have to consider the decision under appeal on merits, while hearing an application for stay, the legislature has apparently considered it unnecessary that the matter should be heard by a Bench of two judges. In appropriate cases, the single judge, under section 9, may adjourn the matter for being heard and determined by a Bench but that is in the discretion of the single judge. Whether in exercise of that discretionary power I should adjourn the matter for being heard by a Bench of two judges, does not arise for consideration at this stage, when I am dealing with the question of jurisdiction. For the above reasons, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chandy is overruled and the interlocutory applications will be heard on merits.
-
1965 (7) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether the compensation, gratuity and other payments made to retrenched employees are allowable expenditure u/s 5(j)of Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, in computing the taxable income and the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim - held, yes
-
1965 (7) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Jenmikaram payable by a kudiyan according to the provisions of Act XII of 1108 is not agricultural income - Jenmikaram realized in respect of agricultural properties in the erstwhile Travancore area is not an agricultural income - If the immediate and effective source is not land, the income cannot be considered to be agricultural income
-
1965 (7) TMI 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Mutawalli is certainly an individual within the meaning of that expression as used in s. 3 of the WT Act, 1957 - therefore, Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the P Wakf represented by manager, was not liable for tax under the WT Act
-
1965 (7) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Net Wealth - agricultural Land - forest lands, trees in which are of spontaneous growth not constitute agricultural lands within the meaning of s. 2(e)(i) of the WT Act and therefore, not liable to exemption
-
1965 (7) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Money Lending Business - Partition of HUF - profits derived from sale - assessability ... ... ... ... ..... of this court on an appreciation of the proved facts and the inference drawn therefrom by the Tribunal is that its conclusion is reasonably possible, this court would be reluctant to interfere, but the facts and circumstances in the instant case do not fall within that rule. We are clearly of opinion that there is nothing in the order of the Tribunal or the statement of the case or even the record before us to justify the conclusion that the assessee was a dealer in properties or that because the properties allotted to the share of the assessee were entered in his account books subsequent to the partition, and the income from some of the properties so allotted was utilised for money-lending business in the first year after partition, the properties were treated as stock-in-trade in the money lending business. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 Question answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1965 (7) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an equitable apportionment of the expenses could be made by virtue of the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 24(1) - held that that the Income-tax Officer could have apportioned under section 10 of the Act the expenses between the money-lending and speculation business.
-
1965 (7) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income from various sources including salary for the services rendered by him - special allowance received by the assessee from the Sanghi Bros in the year of account, in accordance with the resolution dated October 10, 1951, of the board of directors of Sanghi Bros. Limited, - taxability as salary income
|
