Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1961 1961 (4) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 84 of 84 Records
-
1961 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim a deduction on account of sale of mustard seed to the extent of ₹ 1,00,513-11-9 to Messrs. Panna Lal Binjraj as sales made to a registered dealer under the Schedule to Bihar Finance Act (11 of 1949) read with the Bihar Sales Tax Act (XIX of 1947)?
Held that:- In these appeals we have reached the conclusion, for reasons already stated, that the appellant is not entitled to ask us to exercise our power under article 136. There are no special circumstances justifying the exercise of such power ; on the contrary the circumstances are such that it would be wrong both on principle and authority to allow the appellant to bypass the High Court by ignoring its orders. In our view, special leave was not properly given in these cases and we, would accordingly dismiss the appeals with costs, without going into merits
-
1961 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Contingent Interest ... ... ... ... ..... onstitution forbids the creation of different grades in the Government service that is what the petitioner s argument amounts to. The contention that article 16 has been violated because Class II Income-tax Officers are not eligible for promotion to higher posts, like the posts of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, directly is therefore wholly unsound. The only other contention raised is that there is discrimination between Class I and Class II Officers inasmuch as though they do the same kind of work their pay scales are different. This, it is said, violates article 14 of the Constitution. If this contention had any validity, there could be no incremental scales of pay fixed dependent on the duration of an officer s service. The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with article 14. The contention that article 14 of the Constitution has been violated therefore also fails. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1961 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Penalty can be recovered only by `officer of customs' and not by `Chief Customs Authority' — Confiscation — Commutation of order of confiscation to penalty
-
1961 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether "tobacco" means any form of tobacco, whether cured or uncured and whether manufactured or not the tobacco plant but does not include any part of a tobacco plant while still attached to the earth?
Held that:- The distinction between tobacco falling under Clause (5) and Clause (6) according to the report of the Committee, is so clear and unambiguous and its relation to the object intended by the imposition of tariff is so clearly reasonable that the attack against its validity on the ground of unconstitutional discrimination cannot be upheld.
In the counter-affidavit, the allegations made in regard to the exclusive user of Nicotiana Rustica are generally denied what is more the report of the Committee specifically points out that though not known to be used for biris, when they are cured in broken leaf grades they can be used with admixture with biri tobacco like Pandharpuri tobacco for imparting strength to biri mixtures, and so according to the Committee no generalisation in this matter is possible and it cannot be asserted that all the forms of this variety are incapable of use of biris. Besides, it would be quite possible for dealers in the said varieties of tobacco to send them to other parts of the country where they are used for the purpose of manufacturing biris. Therefore, the grievance made by the petitioners that the tobacco in which they deal can never be used for biris is obviously not well founded. Appeal dismissed.
|
|