Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1958 1958 (9) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 65 of 65 Records
-
1958 (9) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Court – Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... ing before the Act of 1956 came into force had jurisdiction to retain the proceedings in his court and to pass judgment thereon in accordance with the provisions of the old Act, and that it was not necessary under the provisions of the Act of 1956 to transfer the said proceedings to the High Court. The learned Judge relied on a previous decision of the Lahore High Court in Daulat Rai v. Wazir Chand AIR 1914 Lah. 511, which was given with reference to section 284 of the old Act. The same view has been taken in Ananthasubramonia Ayyar v. Official Receiver, Sitaram Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 1957 27 Comp. Cas. 417 . With respect, we agree with the view given in the Punjab National Planners Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) and our answer to the question referred to is that the District Judge had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings which were started in his court before the Act of 1956 came into force. The case will go back to the learned single Judge with the aforesaid answer.
-
1958 (9) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
Nothing that we have said in this judgment must be taken to be an expression of opinion which in any way affects the control by the judge of proceedings in winding up or over the liquidators. Appeal dismissed.
-
1958 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a receipt is to be treated as income or not?
Held that:- In the present case the receipts are shown in the account books of a firm of which the appellant and Govindaswamy Mudaliar were partners. When he was called upon to give explanation he put forward two explanations, one being a gift of ₹ 80,000 and the other being receipt of ₹ 42,000 from business of which he claimed to be the real owner. When both these explanations were rejected, as they have been, it was clearly open to the Income-tax Officer to hold that the income must be concealed income. There is ample authority for the position that where an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount of cash received during the accounting year, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. The conclusion to which the Appellate Tribunal came appears to us to be amply warranted by the facts of the case. There is no ground for interfering with that finding, and these appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1958 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
What were the properties that were sold to the purchaser under the sale deed dated the 17th May, 1946, whether they were only the properties mentioned in part 1 to the schedule or, whether they included the fixtures mentioned in part 2 as well?
Held that: On a construction of the two documents, we are of opinion that what were intended to be sold and what were actually sold under the deed dated the 17th May, 1946, were only the properties mentioned in part 1 of the schedule and not any items included in part 2 and that the intention was to sell the fixtures as movables. In this view, the question whether the movables have been validly sold does not really arise for determination, because if the sale is invalid, when there is no sale so far as they are concerned and section 12B will be inapplicable. The decision of the Tribunal holding that it is only the profits in respect of the sale of the properties described in part 1 that are liable to tax under section 12B is correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed
-
1958 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... ds it knew or had reason to be shy lieve that these were smuggled goods. 9. The Collector, it should be remembered, recorded ............if from the surrounding circumstances there is sufficient ground for presuming that the goods have been illegally imported, it is not necessary for the Customs House to positively establish that the goods are smuggled, and the onus of proof shifts to the other side . We are not commenting on the soundness or otherwise of this proposition of law. What the surrounding circumstances the Collector had in view were was not clear either from the order or from the counter-affidavit. 10. As we are of opinion that there was no material on which could be rested a finding, that the possession of the goods in question constituted a contravention of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, we direct that the rule nisi be made absolute, and that the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector be set aside. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
|
|