Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1961 1961 (9) 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 40 of 73 Records

• 1961 (9) TMI 87
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the transfer in favor of respondent 1 was benami and fraudulent.
  2. Whether the sale by the Official Receiver bound the shares of the appellants.
  3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction and the correct court fees were paid.
  4. Whether the properties were joint family properties or self-acquired by respondent 2.
  5. Whether the appellants could plead fraud as a defense against respondent 1's claim.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the transfer in favor of respondent 1 was benami and fraudulent:
  The appellants and respondent 2 argued that the transfer in favor of respondent 1 was benami, meaning that respondent 1 was not the real owner of the properties. Respondent 2 provided an antecedent history, alleging that due to heavy business losses and debts, he executed nominal mortgage and transfer deeds in favor of respondent 1 on the advice of Suryaprakasa Sastrulu. These deeds were claimed to be collusive and without consideration. Respondent 2 further alleged that the properties were purchased by Kanthamani Seshamma with her own money but benami in the name of respondent 1, with an agreement to reconvey the properties to respondent 2's family. The trial court found that the purchase by respondent 1 was a benami transaction intended to defraud creditors, and that respondent 1 had not obtained possession of the properties.
  
  2. Whether the sale by the Official Receiver bound the shares of the appellants:
  The trial court, following the Full Bench decision in Ramasastrulu v. Balakrishna Rao, held that the right of respondent 2 as the father and manager of the undivided Hindu family to sell the shares of his sons for purposes binding on the family did not vest in the Official Receiver upon his insolvency. Therefore, the sale by the Official Receiver to respondent 1 did not bind the shares of the appellants. This finding was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court.
  
  3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction and the correct court fees were paid:
  Issues 8 and 9 addressed the court fees and jurisdiction. The trial court found that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and valued the subject matter at Rs. 2,411-7-2, on which additional court fees were paid by respondent 1. This finding was not contested further.
  
  4. Whether the properties were joint family properties or self-acquired by respondent 2:
  Respondent 1 amended his plaint to allege that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of respondent 2, thereby claiming that the appellants had no interest in them. The trial court, however, found that the properties were joint family properties. Alternatively, even if they were initially self-acquired, they had been blended with the family properties, thus becoming joint family properties. This finding was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court.
  
  5. Whether the appellants could plead fraud as a defense against respondent 1's claim:
  The High Court initially held that the appellants and respondent 2 were estopped from pleading fraud against respondent 1, as the fraud had been effectively carried out. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was argued that where both parties are equally guilty of fraud, the estate should remain where it lies. The Supreme Court emphasized that considerations of public policy should guide the decision. It held that allowing the plea of fraud would prevent the court from being used as an instrument of fraud and would be less injurious to public interest. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing respondent 1's suit and ruling that the property should remain with the appellants and respondent 2.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that in cases of mutual fraud, the estate should remain where it lies to prevent the court from being used to enforce a fraudulent transaction. The suit by respondent 1 was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 86
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Non-inclusion of a necessary party (Ambikabai) in the arbitration application.
  2. Piecemeal reference and splitting up of the cause of action.
  3. Dispute not covered by the arbitration clause.
  4. Allegations of fraud against the appellant.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Non-inclusion of a Necessary Party (Ambikabai)
  The appellant argued that Ambikabai, who had a share in the forest, was not a party to the application under Section 20, thus the entire dispute could not be referred to arbitration. The High Court held that Ambikabai's interest was sufficiently represented by Anant, her nephew. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that even if Anant could not represent Ambikabai's interest, the dispute between the appellant and the respondents should still be referred to arbitration. The Court emphasized that the share of Ambikabai was not in dispute, and the arbitrator could proceed with the accounts and award, excluding her undisputed share. Therefore, the appellant's contention on this point failed.
  
  Issue 2: Piecemeal Reference and Splitting Up of the Cause of Action
  The appellant contended that the respondents did not include the agreement of May 5, 1952, in their application, leading to a piecemeal reference. The Court noted that the agreement of May 1952 was merely confirmatory of the main agreement of October 22, 1948, and would necessarily be considered by the arbitrator. The Court agreed with the trial court's view that pleadings in muffasil courts should not be strictly construed and held that the reference was not piecemeal. Thus, the appellant's contention on this score also failed.
  
  Issue 3: Dispute Not Covered by the Arbitration Clause
  The appellant argued that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause. The Court found the arbitration clause to be of very wide import, covering disputes arising out of the agreements of October 22, 1948, May 5, 1952, and February 27, 1953, as well as disputes related to jungle cutting or export. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on the opening words of clause 6 of the February 1953 agreement, which referenced a letter dated February 7, 1953, stating that these words did not limit the arbitration clause's wide scope. Therefore, the appellant's contention under this head failed.
  
  Issue 4: Allegations of Fraud Against the Appellant
  The appellant contended that serious allegations of fraud had been made against him, which should prevent the matter from being referred to arbitration. The Court acknowledged that serious allegations of fraud could be a sufficient cause for not referring a dispute to arbitration. However, it emphasized that not every allegation of dishonesty in accounts would suffice. The Court examined the allegations in this case, which included incomplete accounts, exaggerated debit items, and apprehensions of potential misappropriation, and concluded that these did not amount to serious allegations of fraud. Therefore, the Court found no sufficient cause to refuse the reference to arbitration. The appellant's contention on this point also failed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that none of the appellant's contentions provided sufficient cause to refuse the reference to arbitration. The arbitration agreement was ordered to be filed in court, and the necessary proceedings were directed to follow. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 85
  
  Issues:
  1. Importation of goods under specific import licenses.
  2. Confiscation of goods by Customs Authorities.
  3. Alternative remedy of appeal under Sea Customs Act.
  4. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The case involved the importation of Cork Covers for jute mill machinery by a petitioner firm under specific import licenses granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Exports and Imports Calcutta. The Customs Authorities alleged that the imported goods could be used in banned machines, leading to confiscation under the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the goods were intended for Roll Former Machines, not excluded by the import licenses, and were meant for legitimate use in jute mill machinery.
  
  2. The Collector of Customs for Appraisement confiscated the goods but provided an option to clear them on payment of a fine. The petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Revenue under the Sea Customs Act, which was pending. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the confiscation order and a writ of mandamus to prevent its enforcement. The Customs Authorities contended that the petitioner should exhaust the appeal remedy before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
  
  3. The High Court considered the precedents and legal principles regarding the availability of alternative remedies and the discretion of the Court to entertain applications under Article 226. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that once an appeal has been filed and is being pursued, seeking parallel relief under Article 226 is not permissible. The Court highlighted that the existence of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the High Court's jurisdiction but must be considered based on specific circumstances.
  
  4. Citing relevant judgments, the High Court concluded that the petitioner, while actively pursuing the appeal under the Sea Customs Act, was not entitled to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution simultaneously. The Court emphasized that unless special circumstances exist, such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice, the availability of an alternative remedy should preclude the invocation of Article 226 jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioner's application, discharged the Rule, and vacated any interim orders, with no order as to costs.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment from the High Court of Calcutta underscores the legal intricacies surrounding importation, confiscation of goods, alternative remedies under the Sea Customs Act, and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 84
  
  Issues:
  1. Entitlement to depreciation on water storage tank under Indian Income-tax Act.
  2. Interpretation of the term "plant" in section 10(2)(vi) of the Act.
  3. Analysis of the schedule to rule 8 for depreciation allowance.
  4. Comparison with judicial precedents regarding the definition of "plant."
  5. Final decision on the claim for depreciation.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on a water storage tank constructed for supplying water for irrigation purposes. The assessee claimed depreciation under clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Initially, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the asset was not provided for under rule 8 and was not used exclusively for business purposes. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim, considering the tank as a "plant" akin to assets in salt works. The Commissioner adjusted the depreciation rate to 2% and allowed only half of the claim due to partial business use.
  
  The Tribunal, on appeal by the department, disagreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, stating that the schedule to rule 8 did not include water storage tanks for depreciation. The Tribunal emphasized that analogies with assets in salt works were not applicable. The Tribunal's decision led to a reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Act for legal interpretation. The counsel for the assessee argued that the water storage tank should be considered a "plant" based on dictionary definitions and the broad interpretation of the term in the schedule to rule 8.
  
  The High Court, however, rejected the assessee's claim. The court analyzed the term "plant" in section 10(2)(vi) and ruled that the primary and extended meanings of the term did not encompass a container for stock-in-trade, as in the case of the water storage tank. The court also dismissed the argument based on the schedule to rule 8, stating that the mention of reservoirs in salt works did not extend to all water storage tanks. The court referenced a House of Lords case to emphasize that "plant" refers to apparatus or instruments used in business operations, excluding stock-in-trade storage.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, denying the depreciation claim on the water storage tank. The judgment clarified that the water storage tank did not qualify as a "plant" under the Indian Income-tax Act, leading to a negative response to the referred question. The assessee was directed to bear the department's costs, affirming the correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 83
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of the assignment of the right to reconveyance.
  2. Interpretation of the language in the agreement of resale.
  3. Application of Madras Act 1 of 1955, specifically Section 7(1).
  4. Enforceability of the right to reconveyance despite the vendor being a lessee and owing arrears.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The plaintiff appealed in a suit for specific performance, where the trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant had executed an agreement to reconvey the property to the original owner or his heirs. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of this right and demanded reconveyance, which the defendant refused. The first appellate court held the assignment invalid, but the High Court found it enforceable based on legal principles and precedent.
  
  2. The first appellate court's decision was primarily based on the language of the agreement, which seemingly restricted the right to reconveyance to the original owner and his heirs. However, the High Court analyzed the clause and found no exclusivity implied, allowing for the assignment of the right. The court dismissed the argument of fraud and misapplication of Madras Act 1 of 1955, stating that the plaintiff's assignment was valid and enforceable.
  
  3. The High Court criticized the first appellate court's erroneous conclusions and clarified that the right to assign the right to reconveyance was inherent in the agreement. The court emphasized that the assignment could not be resisted by the defendant based on the language of the agreement or the vendor's status as a lessee with arrears.
  
  4. The High Court overturned the first appellate court's decision, restoring the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. The court highlighted that the vendor's absence as a party did not hinder the plaintiff's right to enforce the reconveyance. The judgment emphasized the enforceability of the assignment and rejected the arguments regarding fraud and the application of Madras Act 1 of 1955.
  
  5. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the first appellate court. The costs were to remain as awarded by the trial court, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment concluded by stating that no leave was required for further appeal.
  
  6. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the first appellate court was overturned, restoring the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 82
  
  Issues:
  1. Jurisdiction of levy of interest under section 18A for non-payment of advance income tax.
  2. Interpretation of section 18A(8) of the Income-tax Act.
  3. Requirement of a separate order for imposing interest under section 18A.
  4. Applicability of appeal provisions in cases of interest under section 18A.
  5. Delay and latches in approaching the court for relief under article 226.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Jurisdiction of levy of interest under section 18A:
  The petitioner contested the levy of interest under section 18A for non-payment of advance income tax, arguing that a larger amount was refundable to him, which should have been adjusted against the demand for advance tax. The court held that the provision of sub-section (8) of section 18A deems no payment made unless in accordance with the specified provisions. The court emphasized that the refundable amount or its adjustment does not qualify as payment as per the section, thus upholding the jurisdiction of the levy of interest.
  
  2. Interpretation of section 18A(8):
  The court examined the language of section 18A(8) which mandates interest addition if no tax payment is made as per the section's provisions. The court clarified that the provision applies when the advance tax is not paid as required, regardless of any refundable amounts to the taxpayer. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that adjustment of refundable amounts should negate the interest levy, affirming the interpretation of section 18A(8).
  
  3. Requirement of a separate order for imposing interest:
  The petitioner contended that no separate order imposing interest was passed, challenging the validity of the interest demand. The court explained that under section 18A(8), interest calculation is part of the regular assessment process, and no separate order for interest imposition is necessary. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that interest calculation is integral to the assessment order.
  
  4. Applicability of appeal provisions in interest cases:
  The court highlighted that no provision for appealing against interest liability under section 18A(8) existed in the Income-tax Act, as established in previous court decisions. The petitioner's pursuit of appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal was deemed futile and incompetent. The court criticized the petitioner's delay in approaching the court under article 226, ultimately dismissing the petition on grounds of delay and latches.
  
  5. Delay and latches in seeking relief under article 226:
  The court censured the petitioner for pursuing fruitless appeals despite the court's precedent that no appeal lay for interest under section 18A. The court emphasized the petitioner's obligation to seek timely relief under article 226, deeming the petitioner's actions as evidence of gross negligence. The court dismissed the petition on the basis of delay and latches, imposing costs on the petitioner.
  
  In conclusion, the court upheld the jurisdiction of the levy of interest under section 18A, interpreted the provisions of section 18A(8) to affirm interest liability, clarified the absence of a separate order for imposing interest, and criticized the petitioner's delay in seeking relief under article 226, ultimately dismissing the petition.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 81
  
  Issues:
  1. Bail application under the Indian Official Secrets Act.
  2. Consideration of bail in non-bailable offenses.
  3. Prima facie case under Section 3 of the Act.
  4. Nature of the offense and seriousness.
  5. Distinction in granting bail based on individual circumstances.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Supreme Court involved a bail application under the Indian Official Secrets Act. The respondent, a former captain of the Indian Army, was accused of passing official secrets to a foreign agency along with two others. The respondent applied for bail, which was initially granted by the High Court based on the argument that the offense might fall under a bailable section of the Act. However, the Supreme Court found a fundamental error in the High Court's decision as it failed to consider whether the offense was bailable or non-bailable. The Court emphasized that in non-bailable offenses, various factors such as the nature of the offense, seriousness, and public interest must be considered before granting bail.
  
  The Court highlighted that the offense under Section 3 of the Act, which the respondent was charged with, was non-bailable and serious as it pertained to national security interests. The offense involved obtaining or communicating secret official information to a foreign entity, punishable by up to fourteen years of imprisonment. Considering the gravity of the offense and the potential sentence, the Court concluded that discretion to grant bail should not have been exercised in favor of the respondent, despite the wide powers under the Criminal Procedure Code.
  
  Furthermore, the Court differentiated the respondent's case from the other accused who were granted bail, emphasizing that the respondent's alleged involvement with the foreign agency made his case distinct. The Court overturned the High Court's decision to grant bail, stating that the respondent's potential impact on national security outweighed considerations like the likelihood of absconding or the trial duration. The Court directed the Sessions Judge to expedite the trial within two months of the order, highlighting the seriousness of the case and the need for swift judicial proceedings.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order, emphasizing the gravity of the offense under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act and the importance of considering national security interests in such cases. The judgment underscored the need for a comprehensive assessment of factors in non-bailable offenses before granting bail, ensuring that public safety and the integrity of legal proceedings are upheld.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 80
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of reassessment orders under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
  2. Validity of recovery proceedings under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act.
  3. Proper issuance of notice to all executors and legal representatives.
  4. Applicability of section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act for recovery from the petitioner.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of Reassessment Orders under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act:
  The petitioner, represented by Mr. K.V. Suryanarayana Iyer, challenged the reassessment orders passed by the first respondent under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The reassessment was initiated for the years 1945-46 to 1949-50, following the death of Sri S.P. Sadanandan on July 10, 1948. The reassessment notice was issued to "the late S.P. Sadanandan by legal heirs, E.D. Sadanandan and others," and the assessment order described the assessee as "late Sri S.P. Sadanandan represented by legal heirs and representatives." The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notice under section 34 was not served to all the executors and legal representatives of the deceased, specifically pointing out that the will appointed three executors. The court found that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and void due to the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 34 and section 24B(2) of the Act, which require notice to all executors and representatives.
  
  2. Validity of Recovery Proceedings under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act:
  The petitioner also contested the recovery proceedings initiated under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. Notices under sections 27 and 36 of the Act were issued to the petitioner, attaching and proclaiming the sale of certain properties. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were invalid as the reassessment orders themselves were illegal. The court agreed, stating that since the reassessment orders were void, the recovery proceedings based on those orders were also invalid and had to be vacated.
  
  3. Proper Issuance of Notice to All Executors and Legal Representatives:
  The court emphasized that the notice issued under section 34 must be served to all executors and legal representatives of the deceased. The petitioner highlighted that the will appointed three executors, and the failure to issue notice to all of them rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. The court referred to various legal precedents and statutory provisions, including section 24B of the Indian Income-tax Act and sections 211 and 311 of the Indian Succession Act, to conclude that proper representation of the deceased's estate required notice to all executors. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Narayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, Nellore, which underscored the importance of issuing a valid notice under section 34. The court also referenced the Madras High Court decision in E. Alfred v. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Salem, which held that all legal representatives must be served with notice under section 34 for the reassessment to be valid.
  
  4. Applicability of Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act for Recovery from the Petitioner:
  The petitioner argued that proceedings under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act could not be taken against her as she was not an "assessee" under the Act. The court did not delve into this issue in detail, as the decision on the first point regarding the invalidity of the reassessment orders was sufficient to conclude the case in favor of the petitioner. The court expressed no opinion on the applicability of section 46(2) for recovery from the petitioner.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court allowed the writ petition, holding that the reassessment orders passed by the first respondent under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act were void and of no effect due to the failure to issue notice to all executors and legal representatives. Consequently, the recovery proceedings initiated under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act were also invalid. The court granted the petitioner relief by quashing the reassessment orders and prohibiting further recovery proceedings based on those orders. The court did not express an opinion on the applicability of section 46(2) for recovery from the petitioner.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 79
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 8,250 paid as income-tax consultant fees under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 10(2)(xv):
  The primary issue in this case was whether the fees paid by the assessee to an income-tax consultant could be deducted as an expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee claimed the deduction for fees paid during the assessment year 1952-53 for services rendered by the consultant in connection with assessments for previous years, including those where income had been concealed.
  
  Arguments and Tribunal's Decision:
  The income-tax authorities disallowed the deduction, arguing that the fees were related to a voluntary disclosure scheme, which was not a general feature of normal income-tax assessments. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with this reasoning, stating that the deduction must be considered based on the legal position rather than departmental practice. It concluded that the fees could not be claimed as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) because the tax liability arises after income is earned, and thus, the fees were not expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business.
  
  Judicial Interpretation of "For the Purpose of Business":
  The court examined the judicial interpretation of the phrase "for the purpose of business," which means for the purpose of carrying on business and earning profits. The expenses must be incurred to enable the business to earn profits and not merely in the course of or arising out of the business. The court referred to the case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was held that expenses must be incurred in the character of a trader to be deductible.
  
  Arguments by Assessee's Counsel:
  Mr. Samarth, representing the assessee, argued that the expenses were incurred to ascertain the true profits of the business for assessments, and hence, were necessary for earning profits. He cited observations from the House of Lords in Smith's Potato Estates Ltd. v. Bolland, where it was suggested that expenses to ascertain profits could be deductible.
  
  Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
  The court noted that the majority decision in the House of Lords case was against the assessee's argument. The majority held that expenses for ascertaining taxable profit or disputing it with revenue authorities are not for earning profits but for ascertaining tax liability, which is an obligation as a taxpayer, not as a trader. The court agreed with this view, stating that such expenses are not for the purpose of carrying on business or earning profits.
  
  Specific Circumstances of the Case:
  The court highlighted that the expenses in this case were incurred to settle tax liabilities arising from concealed income, which is not a business expense but an effort to avoid penal consequences. The court emphasized that expenses incurred to rectify a taxpayer's fault, such as concealing income, are not deductible as they are not related to the business's purpose.
  
  Rejection of Departmental Practice Argument:
  The court also rejected the argument that the deduction should be allowed based on departmental practice, stating that a practice cannot justify a claim that is not legally permissible under section 10(2)(xv).
  
  Final Judgment:
  The court answered the question in the negative, concluding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 8,250 paid as income-tax consultant fees under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 78
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961.
  2. Whether the licensing authority's refusal to grant a license to the petitioner and preference to cooperative societies violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961:
  
  The petitioner contended that sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the Control Order, 1961, which allows the licensing authority to consider whether the applicant is a cooperative society, is ultra vires as it goes beyond the powers granted under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The respondents argued that sub-clause (e) is within the powers granted and does not create a monopoly in favor of cooperative societies.
  
  The Court held that sub-clause (e) does not provide for a monopoly but enables the licensing authority to prefer cooperative societies in certain circumstances. The Court found that cooperative societies could have better facilities for procuring foodgrains and ensuring scheduled prices to farmers, thus aligning with the objectives of maintaining or increasing supplies and securing equitable distribution at fair prices. Therefore, sub-clause (e) was deemed to have a reasonable relation to the objects of the Essential Commodities Act and was not ultra vires.
  
  2. Whether the licensing authority's refusal to grant a license to the petitioner and preference to cooperative societies violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution:
  
  The petitioner argued that the licensing authority acted on the instructions of the State Government to create a monopoly in favor of cooperative societies, thereby violating his rights under Articles 14 and 19. The respondents contended that no monopoly was created and that the licensing authority's decision was based on relevant considerations under the Control Order, 1961.
  
  The Court observed that the licensing authority repeatedly refused the petitioner's license application to grant a monopoly to cooperative societies, which was not justified by sub-clause (e) of clause 5. The Court held that the licensing authority's actions were a "colourable exercise of power" and violated the petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 19. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated April 11, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's application and the license granted to the Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. The licensing authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order, 1961.
  
  Separate Judgment by Sarkar J.:
  
  Sarkar J. dissented, arguing that the preference given to cooperative societies under clause 5(e) was reasonable and did not create a monopoly. He emphasized that the licensing authority's decision was in the public interest to ensure the supply of foodgrains at fair prices and that the Order was valid under the Essential Commodities Act. He found no evidence that the licensing authority acted on government instructions for 1961 and believed the decision did not violate Articles 14 and 19.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The majority opinion allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and the license granted to the cooperative society, directing the licensing authority to reconsider the applications on merits. The dissenting opinion by Sarkar J. upheld the licensing authority's decision, finding it reasonable and in public interest.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 77
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Entitlement to deductions of allowances under section 9 for income from Bombay properties.
  2. Deduction of tax paid to the Uganda Government from the assessee's world income.
  3. Exemption from tax for life insurance premiums under section 15(1).
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Entitlement to Deductions of Allowances under Section 9:
  The assessee claimed deductions permissible under section 9 of the Income-tax Act for his Bombay properties, which were not allowed in the initial assessment made against his statutory agent, Jeevansingh Grewal. The revenue resisted this claim, arguing that the initial assessment had become final and could not be reopened under section 34. The Tribunal upheld the revenue's stance, citing the finality of the initial assessment.
  
  In the judgment, it was clarified that the first assessment was indeed final and binding on the assessee, even though it was made against his statutory agent. The court emphasized that the scope of reassessment under section 34 is limited to income that has escaped assessment and does not extend to reopening final assessments. The court cited several precedents supporting this principle, including *Commissioner of Income-tax v. A.D. Shroff* and *Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 4)*.
  
  2. Deduction of Tax Paid to the Uganda Government:
  The assessee contended that the tax paid to the Uganda Government on his foreign income should be deducted when computing his total world income. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that there is no commercial practice or principle that allows for such a deduction in determining one's income for taxation purposes.
  
  The court agreed with the Tribunal, noting that no legal provision or commercial principle supports the deduction of foreign taxes paid from the total world income for Indian tax purposes. The court's decision was consistent with the Tribunal's reasoning and the lack of any supporting legal framework for the assessee's claim.
  
  3. Exemption from Tax for Life Insurance Premiums under Section 15(1):
  The assessee argued that he should be entitled to exemption under section 15(1) for life insurance premiums paid, even though the premiums were paid out of his foreign income. The Tribunal accepted this contention, interpreting section 15(1) as not requiring the premiums to be paid out of the total income.
  
  However, the court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation. It held that the sums exempted under section 15(1) must bear the quality of being included in the total income of the assessee. The court cited *Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samnugger Jute Factory Co. Ltd.*, which established that exemptions apply to sums that would otherwise be taxable. The court concluded that since the foreign income of a non-resident does not enter the total income unless the assessee opts to include it, the life insurance premiums paid out of such income do not qualify for exemption under section 15(1).
  
  Conclusion:
  The court answered all three questions in the negative, ruling against the assessee on all counts. The assessee was not entitled to recomputation of income from Bombay properties, could not deduct taxes paid to the Uganda Government from his world income, and was not eligible for exemption under section 15(1) for life insurance premiums paid out of foreign income. The assessee was also ordered to pay the costs of the revenue for both references.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 76
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Section 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952
  2. Relationship of landlord and tenant
  3. Compliance with Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
  4. Estoppel against the Committee
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Applicability of Section 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952
  The primary issue was whether Section 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (the Act) applied to the transactions between the appellants and the New Delhi Municipal Committee (the Committee). The appellants argued that the Act's provisions should apply, asserting that the Transfer of Property Act did not govern these transactions, and thus, a registered lease was unnecessary. They contended that the terms of tenancies could be ascertained from written Kabuliyats. The Committee, however, argued that the essential element of "letting" required a valid contract creating an interest in immovable property, which was absent due to non-compliance with Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act.
  
  2. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant
  The core question was whether there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The Trial Court initially found that such a relationship existed, making the applications for standard rent fixation competent. However, the High Court reversed this finding, concluding that no valid lease existed due to the lack of a properly executed lease and the inapplicability of the doctrine of part performance. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the Act applied only to "letting" that created an interest in immovable property, which was not the case here due to the absence of a valid contract.
  
  3. Compliance with Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911
  Section 47 mandates that every transfer of immovable property by the Committee must be executed in writing, signed by the President or Vice-President and at least two other members, and attested by the Secretary. The appellants argued that non-compliance with these formalities rendered the contract voidable, not void. However, the Court held that the provisions of Section 47 were mandatory, not merely directory. The absence of compliance with these statutory requirements meant that no valid transfer of property occurred, and thus no landlord-tenant relationship was created.
  
  4. Estoppel Against the Committee
  The appellants contended that the Committee was estopped from denying the landlord-tenant relationship, having accepted rent. However, the Court ruled that there could be no estoppel against a statute. The statutory requirements under Section 47 had to be strictly followed, and non-compliance rendered the transactions legally ineffective. The Court cited Halsbury's Laws of England to support the principle that a statutory body cannot be estopped from denying a contract it was ultra vires to make.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties due to the non-compliance with Section 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Therefore, the applications under Section 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act were rightly dismissed by the High Court as incompetent. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and one set of hearing fees was imposed.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 75
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Construction of Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Court under Sections 32 and 33.
  3. Existence of a concluded contract between the parties.
  4. Validity of the arbitration agreement within the contract.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Construction of Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940:
  The principal issue in this appeal concerns the interpretation of Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 32 bars the institution of suits for decisions on the existence, effect, or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, except as provided in the Act. Section 33 allows any party to an arbitration agreement to challenge its existence or validity or to determine its effect by applying to the Court. The Court emphasized that the object of these sections is to prevent the abuse of the judicial process by unscrupulous parties who might deny the existence of arbitration agreements to delay proceedings.
  
  2. Jurisdiction of the Court under Sections 32 and 33:
  The appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's petition under Section 33. The Court clarified that Section 32 creates a bar against suits, and disputes about the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement must be brought before the specified Court as petitions. The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to entertain applications affirming the existence of an arbitration agreement is impliedly recognized by Section 32. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's petition.
  
  3. Existence of a concluded contract between the parties:
  The respondent alleged that a concluded contract was entered into on August 31, 1949, for the supply of cocoanut oil, which included an arbitration agreement. The appellant contended there was no concluded contract. The trial court found that a concluded contract existed, and this finding was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed, interpreting the letter of acceptance from the respondent as an absolute and unqualified acceptance of the appellant's tender, thus forming a concluded contract.
  
  4. Validity of the arbitration agreement within the contract:
  The Court examined whether the arbitration agreement within the concluded contract was valid. It was argued that the security deposit clause in the acceptance letter made the contract conditional. However, the Court found that the security deposit was a condition subsequent, not a condition precedent, to the contract. The letter of acceptance stated that the contract was concluded by the acceptance, and the Court held that the arbitration agreement within this contract was valid.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial court had jurisdiction under Section 32 to entertain the respondent's petition and that a concluded contract containing a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 74
  
  Issues:
  Validity of gift based on book entries
  Transfer of an actionable claim through book entries
  
  Validity of gift based on book entries:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the validity of a gift made by the assessee to his grandsons, as reflected in the book entries transferring a sum of money. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that the entries in the account books were not sufficient evidence to establish a valid gift. The Tribunal specifically noted that the entries were not made in the regular course of business, casting doubt on their reliability. The Tribunal rejected the contention that a valid gift was made by the assessee to his grandsons based on these entries.
  
  Transfer of an actionable claim through book entries:
  Another issue in the case was whether the transfer of the amount from the assessee's account to his grandsons' accounts constituted a transfer of an actionable claim. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the amount owed by the partnership to the assessee was a debt and, therefore, an actionable claim. It was argued that the transfer could have been effected through a tripartite agreement, but the court found no evidence to support this claim. The court held that without a proper deed as required by the Transfer of Property Act, no valid transfer of the amounts had taken place.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court answered both questions in the negative, stating that the book entries did not constitute a valid gift and that the transfer of the amount to the grandsons amounted to a transfer of an actionable claim, which required a proper deed for validity. The court rejected the arguments presented by the assessee's counsel and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the department, and no further orders were issued.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 73
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Accrual of Dividend Income
  2. Application of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949
  3. Situs of Shares and Source of Dividend Income
  4. Legal Fiction and Income Accrual
  5. Applicability of Section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Accrual of Dividend Income:
  The primary issue in the case was whether the net dividend income of Rs. 47,120 accrued to the assessee in the former Baroda State or in British India. The assessee argued that since the dividends were declared out of profits retained in the Baroda State and were paid and kept there, the income accrued in the Baroda State. The Tribunal, however, held that the dividend income did not accrue in the Baroda State as the source of the income was the shares held in British India.
  
  2. Application of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949:
  The Tribunal initially did not consider the applicability of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, as it held that the dividend income did not accrue in the Baroda State. Upon remittance by the Supreme Court, it was clarified that the question of accrual should be decided under the Income-tax Act, and not the Concessions Order. The High Court concluded that the Concessions Order had no application to the case of the assessee.
  
  3. Situs of Shares and Source of Dividend Income:
  The Court examined whether the situs of the shares (Bombay) determined the place of accrual of dividend income. It was argued that the source of dividend income is the shares, and since the shares were located in Bombay, the income accrued in British India. The Court noted that the situs of shares does not necessarily determine the place where the income accrues. The place of declaration and payment of dividends was considered relevant in determining the place of accrual.
  
  4. Legal Fiction and Income Accrual:
  The Court discussed the legal fiction created by the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States) Ordinance, 1949, which treated the merged states as part of British India for tax purposes from 1st April 1949. However, the Court held that this legal fiction did not affect the factual position that the dividends accrued in the Baroda State before its merger into British India on 1st August 1949.
  
  5. Applicability of Section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
  The Court considered whether the dividend income could be deemed to have accrued in British India under Section 42(1) of the Act. It was concluded that since the source of the dividend income was the shares held by the assessee in British India, the income could be deemed to have accrued in British India. The Court noted that the third explanation to Section 4(1) of the Act, which deems dividends paid outside taxable territories as accruing in taxable territories, applies only to non-resident shareholders. Since the assessee was a resident, Section 42(1) was applicable, and the income was deemed to have accrued in British India.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court concluded that the net dividend income of Rs. 47,120, though in fact accrued to the assessee in the former Baroda State, is deemed to have accrued in British India under Section 42(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 72
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether the surplus of $1,41,326 realized by the assessee company by the sale of some of its estates and properties held by it in Malaya was income chargeable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Nature of the Assessee's Business:
  
  The primary issue was whether the assessee company engaged in the business of purchase and sale of properties or merely realized part of its investments. The assessee, a private limited company incorporated in 1937, acquired properties from a firm and made subsequent purchases but ceased acquisitions after 1941. The properties included rubber and coconut plantations, houses, and vacant sites. The company's memorandum of association included numerous objects, including dealing in properties.
  
  2. Continuous Sale of Properties:
  
  The company sold portions of its properties from 1940 to 1950, realizing profits. The Income-tax Officer assessed these profits as business income, arguing that the sales were part of a profit-making scheme. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal upheld this view, noting continuous sales and no compelling necessity to sell, suggesting a business nature.
  
  3. Memorandum and Articles of Association:
  
  The memorandum listed various objects, including dealing in properties. However, the articles of association restricted membership to the P.K.N. family, indicating intent to conserve family property and efficient management, not business in properties.
  
  4. Previous Tribunal Decision:
  
  For the assessment year 1950-51, the Tribunal had concluded that the properties were investments, not business assets. The assessee argued this should apply to the current assessment year, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal disagreed, citing incomplete facts previously.
  
  5. Nature of Transactions:
  
  The court emphasized the need to determine if the sales were incidental to property ownership or part of a business. The company sold only portions of its properties, retaining significant assets and not acquiring new properties after 1941. The sales were argued to be due to communist disturbances and management difficulties, not business intent.
  
  6. Business or Investment:
  
  The court noted that while the memorandum authorized property dealings, this alone didn't determine business nature. The Supreme Court's precedent in Kishan Prasad & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax clarified that the nature of transactions, not just powers, determines business. The company's primary activity was plantation, supported by significant expenditures and income from rubber sales.
  
  7. Adventure in the Nature of Trade:
  
  The court considered if the transactions were an adventure in the nature of trade. Supreme Court guidelines in Venkataswami Naidu and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax emphasized factors like intent, subsequent actions, and transaction nature. The court found no evidence of systematic commercial activity or intent to trade, rebutting any presumption of trade adventure.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court concluded that the company did not engage in the business of dealing in properties. The sales were incidental to property ownership, driven by management needs, not business intent. The question was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee, and the profits were not chargeable to tax as business income. The assessee was entitled to costs, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 71
  
  Issues Involved
  1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
  2. Bias of the adjudicating officer.
  
  Detailed Analysis
  
  1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
  The appellant contended that the proceedings and the resultant order of the Additional Collector of Customs were vitiated due to the violation of the principles of natural justice, as he did not have a fair hearing before the adjudication was made. The Customs authorities issued a Show Cause Memo dated March 3, 1956, requiring the appellant to explain why the goods should not be confiscated and penal action taken against him under Section 167 (8) and (37) of the Sea Customs Act. The appellant's solicitors requested inspection of documents and adjournment of the interview, but the Customs authorities did not provide a clear response. The court noted that the Customs authorities mixed up two separate proceedings, leading to confusion and denying the appellant a fair hearing. The correspondence between the appellant's solicitors and the Customs authorities indicated that the appellant was misled and deprived of an opportunity to make adequate representation against the proposed penalty. The court emphasized that a fair hearing has two elements: the opportunity to be heard and the reasonableness of that opportunity, both of which were found lacking in this case.
  
  2. Bias of the Adjudicating Officer
  The appellant argued that the order could not be sustained on the ground of bias, as S.K. Srivastava, who made the order, had acted both as Judge and prosecutor. The court examined the involvement of S.K. Srivastava in the investigation and found that he took a large part in the investigation leading to the adjudication proceedings and the criminal trial against the appellant. The court referred to the principle that an accuser should not act as a judge, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The court concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood of bias on the part of S.K. Srivastava, which disqualified him from adjudicating the matter.
  
  Conclusion
  The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal, and directed a Writ of Certiorari to be issued quashing the order of S.K. Srivastava, Additional Collector of Customs, dated June 19, 1956. The court also noted that nothing in the judgment would prevent the Customs authorities from proceeding against the appellant in accordance with the law. Parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout, and the judgment was certified for two Counsel.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 70
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Constitutional validity of the operative provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952.
  2. Validity of the notification dated February 11, 1959, issued under Section 15 of the Act, bringing 'gur' within the purview of the Act.
  3. Validity of the notification issued simultaneously by the Central Government fixing the price at which forward contracts subsisting on February 11, 1959, were to be settled.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Constitutional Validity of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952:
  The Act was challenged on the grounds that it infringed on the freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which allows citizens to form associations or unions. The petitioners argued that the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on the internal management of associations, violating their right to function effectively.
  
  Court's Analysis:
  - The Court held that the Act does not compel associations to seek recognition; it is a voluntary act. The restrictions imposed by the Act are for the purpose of recognition and ensuring effective control over forward trading.
  - The Court emphasized that the regulation of forward trading is a legitimate subject of legislative interference due to its potential to assume undesirable forms akin to gambling, affecting lawful trade and public interest.
  - The Court rejected the argument that the Act's provisions infringe on the freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c), stating that the restrictions are reasonable and necessary for the effective regulation of forward trading.
  
  2. Validity of the Notification Dated February 11, 1959, Issued Under Section 15 of the Act:
  The notification brought 'gur' within the purview of the Act, rendering forward contracts in 'gur' illegal unless conducted through recognized associations.
  
  Court's Analysis:
  - The petitioners argued that the notification was invalid as it was issued without first recognizing associations for dealing in 'gur,' which they claimed was a prerequisite under the Act.
  - The Court held that the existence of a recognized association is not a legal prerequisite for issuing a notification under Section 15. The Act does not contemplate the Central Government setting up associations but relies on voluntary associations seeking recognition.
  - The Court found that the urgent need to regulate forward trading in 'gur' justified the immediate issuance of the notification, even before recognizing associations. The situation necessitated prompt action to control speculative activities and stabilize prices.
  - The Court concluded that the notification was a reasonable restriction in the interest of public welfare and did not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
  
  3. Validity of the Notification Fixing the Price for Settling Forward Contracts:
  The notification fixed the price at which forward contracts in 'gur' subsisting on February 11, 1959, were to be settled, based on the average closing rates of the preceding three months.
  
  Court's Analysis:
  - The petitioners contended that the provision allowing the Central Government to fix the price was arbitrary and lacked guiding principles, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
  - The Court noted that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, similarly empowers the government to fix prices to ensure they are reasonable, considering production costs and prevailing market conditions.
  - The Court found that the Act implicitly required the price fixed to be reasonable, taking into account relevant factors. The price-fixing power was necessary to prevent manipulation and ensure fair settlement of contracts.
  - The Court held that the actual price fixed in the notification was reasonable, aimed at curbing speculative activities and stabilizing the market. The provision and the notification were deemed constitutionally valid.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, and the notifications issued under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act. The restrictions imposed by the Act and the notifications were found to be reasonable and in the interest of public welfare, thereby not violating Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(f), or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 68
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956.
  2. Constitutionality of the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960.
  3. Violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  5. Impact on freedom of the press.
  6. Impact on the business activities of newspapers.
  7. Role of the Press Commission's recommendations.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956:
  The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, arguing that it was designed to curtail the freedom of the press and thus violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Act regulated the number of pages and price of newspapers, prescribed penalties for contraventions, and required government permission for issuing supplements. The court found that the Act directly interfered with the freedom of speech and expression by imposing restrictions on the number of pages a newspaper could publish based on its price, thus affecting its circulation.
  
  2. Constitutionality of the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960:
  The Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960, implemented the provisions of the Act by setting a price-page schedule for newspapers. The petitioners argued that this Order would force newspapers to either increase their prices or reduce the number of pages, which would adversely affect their circulation and their ability to disseminate news and views. The court concluded that the Order placed a restraint on the freedom of speech and expression by mandating a price-page schedule, thereby directly impacting the volume of circulation.
  
  3. Violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution:
  The petitioners contended that the Act and the Order violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. They argued that the restrictions imposed by the Act and the Order would either force newspapers to raise their prices, thereby reducing their circulation, or reduce the number of pages, thereby restricting the dissemination of news and views. The court held that the right to propagate one's ideas is inherent in the freedom of speech and expression, and any restriction on the volume of circulation directly interferes with this right. The court emphasized that the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to publish and circulate ideas without state interference, except for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
  
  4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
  The petitioners argued that the Act and the Order violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They claimed that the provisions of the Act and the Order promoted the interests of some newspapers at the expense of others, leading to arbitrary and unreasonable classification. The court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the violation of Article 19(1)(a).
  
  5. Impact on Freedom of the Press:
  The court recognized that the freedom of the press is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). The court noted that any law that directly or indirectly restricts the circulation of newspapers or the dissemination of news and views would be an infringement of this freedom. The court emphasized that the press plays a crucial role in a democratic society by informing the public and shaping public opinion, and any interference with this role must be carefully scrutinized.
  
  6. Impact on the Business Activities of Newspapers:
  The respondent argued that the Act and the Order aimed to prevent unfair competition and monopolistic practices among newspapers, thereby promoting healthy journalism. The court, however, held that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be curtailed under the guise of regulating business activities. The court stated that while the state may impose restrictions on business activities in the interest of the general public, it cannot do so by directly infringing on the freedom of speech and expression.
  
  7. Role of the Press Commission's Recommendations:
  The respondent contended that the Act and the Order were based on the recommendations of the Press Commission, which aimed to prevent unfair competition and promote the development of smaller newspapers. The court acknowledged the recommendations but held that the means employed to achieve the desired end must not transgress the limits laid down by the Constitution. The court concluded that the Act and the Order directly interfered with the freedom of speech and expression, and therefore, could not be justified solely based on the Press Commission's recommendations.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court declared Section 3(1) of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960, unconstitutional as they directly infringed on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the state cannot impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under the pretext of regulating business activities or preventing unfair competition. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and struck down the impugned provisions.

  ---

• 1961 (9) TMI 67
  
  Issues:
  Admission of claim by the official liquidator regarding tax penalties imposed on the company, the authority of the official liquidator to challenge penalty orders, the impact of winding up proceedings on legal proceedings against the company, and the jurisdiction of the court in determining the legality of tax assessments.
  
  Analysis:
  The petition filed by the Union of India through the Commissioner of Income-tax sought admission of a claim amounting to Rs. 16,500, representing penalties imposed on the company. The dispute centered around penalty orders for four assessment years, totaling Rs. 16,500, with varying penalty amounts imposed and no appeals lodged against them by the company. The company was subsequently ordered to be wound up on 13th January, 1956.
  
  The Union contended that penalty orders could not be challenged by the official liquidator, citing legal precedents emphasizing the finality of tax assessments and the jurisdiction of specialized tribunals under the Income-tax Act. Reference was made to cases such as Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co. and In re Kaithal Grain and Bullion Exchange to support the argument that penalty orders became final when no appeal was filed and could not be reopened in liquidation proceedings.
  
  The court held that penalty orders passed before the company's liquidation were valid and should be admitted by the official liquidator. However, regarding a penalty order of Rs. 4,000 imposed after the company went into liquidation, the court found that proper legal procedures were not followed as no notice was given to the official liquidator. The court invoked Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which prohibits legal proceedings against a company in liquidation without court permission. As no court leave was obtained for the penalty imposed post-liquidation, the claim for Rs. 4,000 was dismissed.
  
  Consequently, the court directed the official liquidator to admit the petitioner's claim up to Rs. 12,500, confirming the admission of the remaining amount. The petitioner was deemed an ordinary creditor for the admitted claim, and the official liquidator's actions in admitting the claim were upheld.
  
  In conclusion, the court's decision favored the petitioner for claims related to penalties imposed before the company's liquidation, emphasizing the legal procedures and limitations on challenging tax assessments during winding up proceedings.

  ---

1234