Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1961 1961 (8) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 64 of 64 Records
-
1961 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether bamboo, thatch, fuel, etc., grown by the assessee company and utilised for its own benefits in its tea business, agricultural income within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act ?
Whether such income be computed under rule 4 of the rules framed under the Act ?
Held that:- The words in section 2(1)(b)(i) are, in our opinion, wide, plain and unambiguous and they cannot be construed to exclude agricultural produce used by the appellant for its business. In this connection we may incidentally refer to the provisions of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of section 7(1) of the Act which provide for the computation of tax and allowances under the head " agricultural income from agriculture. " These three sub-clauses in terms correspond to the three sub-clauses of section 2(1)(b) and lend some support to the conclusion that clause (i) in section 2(1)(b) does not require that the agricultural produce should be sold and profit or gain received from such sale before it is included in the said clause. Therefore, we do not think that Mr. Mitra is justified in contending that the answer made by the High Court in the affirmative and against the appellant in reference to question No. 1 is wrong.
Rrule 4(2) deals with cases where agricultural produce has been sold outside the market as well as cases where agricultural produce has not been sold at all. The effect of reading the two sub-rules together is that the cases of market sales are covered by rule 4(1) and all other cases are covered by rule 4(2). Rule 4(2) is a residuary rule which applies to all cases not falling under rule 4(1). Therefore, we must hold that the answer given by the High Court to question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the appellant is also right. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee is entitled to earned income relief on the share income of the two minor sons for 1949-50 assessment year and on the share income of one minor son for 1950-51 assessment year included in the computation of the total income of the assessee under the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- The section can only be read as enacting that for purposes of earned income relief, " such income " will be included which, though it is the income of another person, has been earned by the assessee, or, in the case of a firm, where the assessee is a partner, by his being actively engaged as partner in the conduct of the business. The words " where the assessee is a partner " must be given effect to, ever when the income of the minor or the wife is considered under the latter part, and they also point to the same conclusion. In reading the definition in this way, no violence is done to the language of it. The condition that the assessee must have worked actively as a partner is thus applicable also to the latter part of the definition. In our opinion, the High Court was right in the answer which it gave. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (8) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF ASSAM AT GAUHATI
Smuggling - Burden of proof ... ... ... ... ..... al application. Under that section, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This court in Shambhu Nath Mogra v. State of Ajmer, 1956 S.C.R. 199 AIR 1956 SC 404 after considering the earlier Privy Council decision on the interpretation of S. 106 of the Evidence Act, at page 204 (of S.C.R.) (at p. 406 of AIR) thus The section cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of cases, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. Applying the principles enunciated in this case we think that in the present case the department failed to discharge the burden upon it. In the result we quash the order of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and direct that the properties confiscated should be released forthwith and the penalty and the incidental charges if paid should be refunded. The petition is allowed with extra cost which is assessed at Rs. 100.
-
1961 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Natural Justice - Cross examination ... ... ... ... ..... in refusing to afford opportunity to cross-examine the 6 witnesses mentioned above, the 1st respondent has violated principles of natural justice. The result, therefore, is that the impugned order must be set aside. 5.I have not considered other grounds mentioned in the petition, as on the above short facts the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 6.In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). 7.The 1st respondent is entitled to make fresh inquiries. In the event of the 1st respondent or appropriate Officer taking fresh proceedings within 4 weeks from today against the petitioners in respect of the gold mentioned in the petition, there will be no writ of mandamus. In default of fresh proceedings within 4 weeks the writ of mandamus will issue directing the respondents to restore possession of the said two slabs of gold weighing 608 tolas and anna to the petitioners. The respondents will bear and pay costs of the petitioners.
|
|