Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 25 of 25 Records
-
1953 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sums of ₹ 12,68,480 and ₹ 4,40,878 were sale proceeds of the goods sold by the assessee to merchants in British India or were debts due by the said merchants ?
Whether if they were sale proceeds, they were received in British India ?"
Whether the profits of the assessee's business are included in the sums of ₹ 12,68,480 and ₹ 4,40,878 ?
Held that:- The High Court was right in holding that the two sums of ₹ 12,68,480 and ₹ 4,40,878 were the sale proceeds of the goods sold and delivered by the appellant to merchants in British India, that they were received by Messrs. Jagmohandas Ramanlal & Co., and by the banks and shroffs through whom the railway receipts were negotiated, on behalf of the appellant in British India, that they were liable to tax under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act as having been received in British India on its behalf, that there is nothing either in the facts and circumstances of the case or in law why they should be exempted from such liability, that the answers given to the questions which were ultimately considered by the High Court were correct, and the appellant was rightly held liable for the tax on these two amounts subject to all just deductions and allowances. The appeal therefore fails and must stand dismissed
-
1953 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the circumstances of this case, the moneys deposited by customers with the assessee firm as security deposits were 'borrowed money' within the meaning of Rule 2A of the Second Schedule to the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, either throughout the chargeable accounting period ended 12th April, 1945, or during any part of that chargeable accounting period ?
Held that:- Set aside the order of the court below and answer the question referred in the affirmative with reference to the last part of the chargeable accounting period, namely, 14th February, 1945, to 12th April, 1945, and in the negative with reference to the rest of that period.
-
1953 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income, profits and gains derived from the sale of salt in British India are assessable to tax as income, profits and gains received or deemed to be received under Section 4(1)(a) ?
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in accepting the contention of the Department that the income accrued or arose or is deemed to accrue or arise in India and is assessable to tax as contemplated by Section 4(1)(c) ?
Whether the Tribunal was right in the circumstances of this case in rejecting the contention of the assessee (applicant) that the income, profits and gains are chargeable to tax from the sale of salt in British India under Section 42 only ?
Held that:- High Court correctly answered Question (1) in the affirmative so far as income-tax is concerned. Excess profits tax, however, cannot be levied on this basis.
Question (2). The Tribunal was wrong in accepting the contention of the Department that the income accrued or arose in India. The Tribunal did not hold that the income is income which should be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The part of the question which states that the Tribunal did so is not in accordance with fact. We find that the income, profits and gains must be deemed to have arisen or accrued in India so far as excess profits tax is concerned and that Section 42(3) of the Income-tax Act applies to the levy of excess profits tax by virtue of Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
Question (3). The Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention that the income, profits and gains are chargeable to tax under Section 42 only. They are also chargeable to income-tax as falling within the purview of Section 4(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act as income received in India on behalf of the assessee company. In such a case Section 42 of the Income-tax Act would have no application. Appeal dismissed.
-
1953 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on a true construction of Rule 5 of Schedule II of the Excess Profits Tax Act the expression 'so far as the contrary is shown' applies only to sub-clause (a) or also to sub-clause (b) ?
Whether the managing agency commission payable by the company to its managing agents for the year 1943 is borrowed money for the purposes of Rule 2A or a debt for the purposes of Rule 2 of Schedule II to the Excess Profits Tax Act ?
Held that:- A loan imports a positive act of lending coupled with an acceptance by the other side of the money as a loan. The relationship of borrower and lender cannot ordinarily come about by mere inaction. The clause in the Articles of Agreement quoted above was relied on for the purpose of showing that there was such an agreement in the case. We are unable to construe the provisions in that way. They merely give the managing agents a right to receive their commission at a certain time. If the money is not paid in time it lies with the assessee as a debt due to the agents.
We agree with the High Court that it is a debt under Rule 2 and not a borrowing under Rule 2A. Appeal dismissed.
-
1953 (1) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Warehoused goods - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... sanction of the Central Board of Revenue had to be taken in order to take certificate action against the appellants. Rule 161 provides for three modes for realization of the excise duty. The Excise authorities may either proceed upon the bond executed by the owner of the goods or may realize the dues by sale at public auction of the goods or in such other manner as the Central Board of Revenue may in any particular case direct. It appears in this case that the Central Board of Revenue directed the realization of the dues by certificate action under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and this notice was served on the 29th of August, 1950 that is, on a date after the Constitution had come into force. For this reason the second point urged by the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted. 25.The result is that this appeal fails and must be dismissed but having regard to the special circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs of this court.
|