Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1957 1957 (12) 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 21 to 30 of 30 Records

• 1957 (12) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Export and Import

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ven though it was imposed on railborne goods entering the municipal area. It is a noticeable feature of s. 66(1) that apart from the terminal tax there are 14 other heads of taxation imposable by the Municipality and in the case of each one of these 14 heads the tax is on some activity which takes place within the jurisdictional limits of the Municipality. This supports the contention of the appellant that the terminal tax leviable under cl. (o) properly construed must have reference to some activity within the municipal area i.e., the entry for the purpose of remaining within that area or commencement of journey from that area. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the terminal tax under s. 66(1)(o) is not leviable on goods which are in transit and are only carried across the limits of the Municipality, and would therefore allow this appeal, reverse the decision of the Nagpur High Court. The appellant will have its costs in this court and in the High Court. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... retrospective. Vide the observations of Lord Denman C. J. in The Queen v. St. Mary, Whitechapel ( 1848 12 Q. B. 120; 116 E.R.811.) and The Queen v. Christchurch ( 1848 12 Q.B, 149; 116 E.R. 823, 825.). This contention must also be rejected. (IV) Lastly, it was contended that the impugned orders were not passed by the competent authorities under the Security Rules, and that they were, therefore, void. This contention is based on the fact that the authority competent to pass the orders under R. 3 is, as regards the present appellants, the General Manager, and that the impugned orders were actually communicated to them by the Deputy Manager. But it has been found as a fact that the orders had been actually passed by the General Manager, and that finding must be accepted. In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed with costs. The appellants who were permitted to file the appeals in forma pauperis will also pay the court fees payable to the Government. Appeals dismissed.

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 21 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... " Thus the sentence in the ruling, " a notice issued under this section, therefore, pertains to those items only which have escaped assessment and to no others ", unless torn out from their factual context, cannot be deemed to throw any light on the question to be answered in this case. After having given most anxious consideration to the various grounds advanced before us, and for the reasons stated above, the question referred to this Court must be answered in the affirmative. We are, therefore, of the view that in the circumstances of the case, when a notice is issued under section 34, based on a certain item of income that had escaped assessment, it is permissible for the Income-tax authorities to include other items in the assessment, in addition to the item which had initiated and resulted in the notice under section 34. The assessee shall pay costs to the Department which we assess at ₹ 250. BHANDARI, C.J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e appellant but of the Legislature, which gave the employees certain rights which they did not have before, and what it can give, it can also take away or modify, and we do not see how the employers are aggrieved by it. We are of opinion that no valid grounds exist on which s. 3(1) and s. 3(2)(a) of the impugned Act could be attacked as unconstitutional, and they must accordingly be held to be valid. In the result, we hold, in modification of the order of the Court below, that the provisions of the impugned Act are unconstitutional and void in so far as they relate to " unpaid accumulations", but that they are valid as regards " fines "; and an appropriate writ will issue against the respondents in the terms stated above. The appeal succeeds in part, but as it is stated that " unpaid accumulations " form by far the most substantial portion of the claim, we direct the respondents to pay half the costs of the appellant here and in the Court below.

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 19 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... determined after notice to the assessees, it is not repugnant to rules of natural justice to provide that the validity of assessment shall not be questioned at the stage of realisation of the tax . The prohibition in section 22 of the Act applies to all persons in respect of whom any assessment has been made or any order has been passed by any assessing authority under the Act and the Rules there is no discrimination as between persons falling under that category. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are not satisfied that there is any substance in the contention that section 22 of the Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution. We answer the question referred to us as follows Section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, is not ultra vires of the Constitution or the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the accused is not entitled to question any assessment or order made by the assessing authority under the Act or the Rules thereunder. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... It is very significant that in such cases the right of the plaintiffs are only to get a commission on the transactions effected directly by the Mills with the dealers. Clause (13) makes the delivery effective at Ahmedabad itself and clause (20) entitles them to get a commission only on the value of the goods sold ex-mills Ahmedabad. There is no clause in the agreement from which we can infer that the plaintiffs carry on a business of buying or selling goods within the State of Madras. Therefore, this contention of the learned Government Pleader also fails. 39.. The contention of the Government on the question of limitation is devoid of any substance. 40.. In the result, the decrees and judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge are confirmed and these three appeals dismissed. The plaintiffs will get from the State the entire costs of printed papers in all the three appeals but the plaintiffs will get advocate s fee in this Court only in A.S. 1238 of 1953. Appeals dismissed.

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... k related to the business transacted in the shop or whether they related exclusively to the private affairs of the accused. The conduct of the accused in withholding the book from P.W.1 and thus preventing and obstructing him from the exercise of his right as the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to inspect the book, leads to the irresistible inference that the book in question really contained entries relating to the business in the shop. Such prevention and obstruction amount to an offence punishment under section 15, clauses (c) and (h) of the Act. Since the punishment is also provided for by section 15 itself, there is no necessity to invoke the aid of section 186 of the Penal Code. The conviction recorded under section 15(c) and (h) read along with section 14(2) of the Sales Tax Act is proper and it calls for no interference. The sentence has only been lenient and it also does not merit any interference. 5.. In the result this revision case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ose once an assessment has been made, if an assessee is to be additionally assessed, action has to be taken within three calendar years but where the matter is already started on either the return of the assessee or for want of return by the assessee, the proceedings cannot be said to be hit by any rule of limitation, because no rule of limitation has been so provided. 20.. In our opinion, without going into the rulings which have been cited dealing with income-tax matters-and we have already said that the Income-tax Act is a statute of a different kind-section 11-A was not applicable to the two cases before us. In applying the rule of limitation contained in sections 11-A and 11(5) to these cases the learned single Judge was in error. We accordingly set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow the appeals with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 50 in each case. Appeals allowed. Kailash Nath and Another v. State of U.P. and Others 1957 (8 S.T.C. 358 A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 790).

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Company – Membership of, Meeting and Proceedings – Power of Company Law Board to Order Meeting to be Called

  ---

• 1957 (12) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Meetings and proceedings – Company Law Board’s power to call annual general meeting and Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet

  ---

12