Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1954 1954 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 41 to 53 of 53 Records

• 1954 (4) TMI 33
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nt that was contributed by the members for the purchase. There is no element of sale by the society to the members, and the only part played by the society was to act as an intermediary between the purchasers and the sellers and therefore, it is impossible to infer from that any element of sale as between the society and the members. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, is in our opinion correct and these revision petitions are dismissed with costs, Rs. 250 in T.R.C. No. 63 of 1953 only. Petitions dismissed.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 32
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of each of the assessees was taxable. After the Constitution came into force, the Madras General Sales Tax Act was adapted under the Adaptation of Laws Order, Fourth Amend- ment 1952, and Section 22 was added, and Section 22 was given retros- pective effect with effect from 26th January, 1950, on which date the Constitution came into force. Section 22 really adapted the language of Article 286. Clauses (1) and (2), the arrangement of the sub-section, and the Explanation in Section 22 appear to have anticipated the decision of the Supreme Court in the Travancore case(1). Thus, neither the ban imposed by Article 286(1)(a) or by Article 286 (2) nor the ban imposed by Section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, which itself was founded on Article 286(1) and (2), applies to the levy of sales tax under the Madras Act on the turnover in dispute. These petitions are dismissed with costs, Rs. 125 in each petition. Petitions dismissed. (1) 1953 4 S.T.C. 205. (2) 1953 4 S.T.C. 133.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 31
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... visions of the Covenant or in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India after it was enforced in this State. But this matter is now concluded by the authority in Pirthi Singh and Others v. The State of Pepsu and Others(1), in which a Division Bench of this Court, following Ram Dubey s case from Madhya Bharat, has taken the contrary view and has held that the Rulers of the Covenanting States did not deprive themselves of the power to alter, amend, or even to abrogate the Original Covenant. In view of this authority it has now to be held that the Supplementary Covenant was a valid instrument to amend the Original Covenant and that being so, the Ordinance in ques- tion remained good law until the Constitution of India came into force in this State and thereafter it has remained valid law under Article 372 of the Constitution. The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed, but no order is made as to costs. Petition dismissed. (1) A.I.R. 1953 Pepsu 161.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 30
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... understands the distinction between the two with sufficient vagueness. From a review of these authorities, it seems to us clear that the word "business", employed in the definition of "dealer" in the Madras General Sales Tax Act is used in the sense of buying or selling goods with a view to earn profit. As observed already, in the present case, the supply of food-grains to the workmen by the assessees is not carried out with a view to earn profit and in fact no profit accrued. We think, therefore, that the objection of the assessees that they are not liable to pay sales tax must be upheld. The result is that the revision petition is allowed in respect of the to items (items 1 and 5) which were included in the turnover of the assessees during the assessment year, which we direct must be deleted from the turnover. The assessees, who have succeeded, will be entitled to their costs, which we fix at Rs. 250. Petition allowed. (1) 1952 22 I.T.R. 502 at p. 512.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 29
  

  Provision relating to the payment of annual contribution contained in it is a tax and not a fee and so it was beyond the legislative competence of the Madras State Legislature to enact such a provision - That on the facts of the present case the imposition under a. 76(1) of the Act, although it is a tax, does not come within the latter part of art. 27 because the object of the contribution under the section is not the fostering or preservation of the Hindu religion or any denomination under it but the proper administration of religious trusts and institutions wherever they exist.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 28
  

  Parties to petition

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e lower court had power under Order I, rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code, to add the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, and whose presence before the court may be necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. This power can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings suo motu or on the application of any party. The company was joined before issues were framed and we do not think any prejudice is caused by such joinder. The learned counsel conceded that no question of limitation is involved in such cases. The learned counsel for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection that an appeal against the order allowing amendment or joinder of parties was not tenable under section 202 of the Companies Act. It is not necessary to decide this contention here as the appeal fails on merits. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 26
  

  Directors - Power of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tion is taken to a suit in the name of a company by a defendant, who contests the fact that the company is properly brought as a plaintiff, is by an application for striking off the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs have no right to use the name of the company, as they are not in a majority in the company. If such an objection were raised, and the facts are disputed, the court would determine the question, after ascertaining the wishes of the majority of the shareholders. In the present case, there can be no doubt at all that the majority of the directors are supporting or are in favour of the company s name appearing in the record as the plaintiff. In such circumstances, I do not see any point in the objection that the company is not entitled to be a co-plaintiff in this action. Holding as I do that the decision of the learned District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli on the preliminary issues is correct, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. One set.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 25
  

  Right to present winding-up petition where company is being wound-up voluntarily or subject to courts supervision

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 24
  

  Trust not be entered on register of members, Meetings and Proceedings – Chairman’s declaration of result of voting by show of hands to be conclusive and Right of Member to use his Votes Differently

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 4
  

  Indian State

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r to those found in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1953--Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Messrs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., except in the following particulars (1) that all cheques were made non-negotiable, (2) that no credit was given by the bank to the assessee before collection, (3) that there was no finding that the assessee gave credit to the Government for the amount of the cheque immediately on receipt thereof. Learned counsel on either side did not suggest that the differences noted above would make any difference in the answer to the referred question which is the same as in the other appeal. That being the position, this case is governed by the judgment which has just been pronounced by us in the other appeal. We accordingly allow the appeal and answer the referred question in the affirmative. For reasons similar to those referred to in our judgment in that appeal each party must bear and pay his or its own costs both in this Court and in the High Court. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 3
  

  Whether on the facts of this case, income, profits and gains in respect of sales made to the Government of India was received in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act?

  Held that:- It can scarcely be suggested with any semblance of reasonable plausibility that cheques drawn in Delhi and actually received by post in Aundh would in the normal course of business be posted in some place outside British India. This Posting in Delhi, in law, amounted to payment in Delhi. In this view of the matter the referred question should, with respect, have been answered by the High Court in the affirmative. We, therefore, allow the appeal and answer the question accordingly. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 2
  

  Whether under the terms of the agreement the petitioner is an employee of the Mills Company or is carrying on business ?

  Whether the remuneration received from the Mills is on account of service or is the remuneration for business ?

  Held that:- All the factors taken into consideration along with the fixity of tenure, the nature of remuneration and the assignability of their rights, are sufficient to enable us to come to the conclusion that the activities of the appellants as the agents of the company constituted a business and the remuneration which the appellants received from the company under the terms of the agency agreement was income, profits or gains from business. Appeals dismissed.

  ---

• 1954 (4) TMI 1
  

  Whether the learned High Court Judges erred in importing any question of capacity in which the income is held by Ratilal, into the application of Section 16(1)(c)?

  Held that:- The provision in the settlement deed giving the income back to Ratilal, even if it be taken as a retransfer of the income, cannot be treated as such retransfer to the original settlor, viz., the Hindu undivided family. Hence the last portion of clause (c) of Section 16(1) does not come into operation. It follows accordingly that the contention on behalf of the appellant that what was intended under the terms of the trust deed as the individual income of the respondent Ratilal becomes the joint family income by a process of successive application of the fictions enacted in the last portion of clause (c) of Section 16(1), and the two provisos thereto, cannot be accepted. This is enough, to dispose of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

123