|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 59 Records
-
1957 (2) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Sessions Court incompetent to try the case. The facts there were entirely different from the facts of the present cases and there was no occasion nor necessity for considering such mandatory provisions as are contained in s. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. We do not think that the observations made in that case can be pressed in service in support of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases, treating those observations as though they laid down any abstract propositions of law not dependent on the context of the facts in connection with which they were made. 12. Out of deference to learned counsel for the petitioners, we have indicated and considered very brief the arguments advanced before us. As we have said before, the point is really concluded by decisions of the highest tribunal, decisions which correctly lay down the law. The result therefore is that these petitions are devoid of all merit and must be dismissed. 13. Petitions dismissed.
-
1957 (2) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... any protest as to the form of the notice. In such a case, the jurisdiction of the Officer will not be ousted. But, if the Assessee refuses to submit any return or submits a return showing a non-assessable outturn and does not otherwise take part in the proceedings, the Officer will have no jurisdiction to assess him or to proceed to deal with him under the other penal sections of the Act. 9. I, therefore, hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case there has been sufficient compliance with Section 19A of the Act and the assessment proceedings in respect of periods which are within time from 12th June, 1952, as contemplated by the section are not void. The assessments may be modified accordingly. As the whole confusion in the case has arisen on account of the failure of the Taxing Officer to pay due attention to the provisions of the ,law the Department is not entitled to the costs at this reference. The reference is answered accordingly. Haliram Deka, J. 10. I agree.
-
1957 (2) TMI 93 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nion, cannot be gone into because of there being no proper petition before us in this connection. In the application dated 12th December, 1952, with the heading "Petition under section 66 (4) of India", the relief claimed is stated as follows "............ that the statement of case submitted by the Appellate Tribunal be referred back to them with the direction that a reference to the miscellaneous application aforesaid and the Tribunals order thereon be included in the statement of case which should be returned to this Honble Court with those additions thereto and the documents referred to in para. 11 above." The respondents, therefore, have had no notice of the fresh case sought to be made out by the assessee during arguments. The assessee May, if so advised, present a fresh application for the purpose. This application of his stands dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case no order is made as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1957 (2) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ar case against him and there was no sound reason for disregarding it.” 14. After discussing the evidence of the witnesses and the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant the High Court held “there is not the slightest doubt about his guilt”. 15. It was because of the above two contentions raised by counsel for the appellant and because it was a case of reversal of a judgment of acquittal that we allowed counsel to go into the evidence which he analysed and drew our attention to its salient features and to the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the improbabilities of the case; but we are satisfied that the learned Judges were justified in coming to the conclusion they did and the view of the trial judge was rightly displaced. Upon a review of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we have come to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly convicted. 16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is affirmed.
-
1957 (2) TMI 91 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... revenue receipt. The learned counsel then argued that in this view of the matter the case in which persons receive lump sums in commutation of their pensions would become liable to income-tax on these amounts. It is, however, not necessary to deal with pension cases in this judgment, nor is it necessary to discuss the nature of pension and the effect of its commutation on the liability of the recipient to pay income-tax on it. This matter will no doubt be decided when it is properly raised. For all these reasons I am of the opinion that in substance the payment in the present case was made in commutation of "income", and, therefore, it must be held to have been received by the assessee as a revenue receipt. Accordingly, I would answer the question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act for decision in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the respondent which are assessed at ₹ 250. Falshaw, J.-I agree.
-
1957 (2) TMI 90 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the previous year in question because they have already been taxed and added back and double taxation of the same income is not permissible. What can be taxed on the basis of the deposits made by the proprietor are only those items which have not been added back already when calculating the taxable income and those are the only sums which can be taxed as concealed income of the previous year when making the assessment for the assessment year 1945-46. 5. Our answer, therefore, is that the sum of ₹ 68,958/- represents concealed income of the assessee of the previous year for the assessment year 1945-46 but, out of this sum, the sums of ₹ 26,397/-, ₹ 403/- and ₹ 12,782/- have already been taxed and, therefore, instead of ₹ 68,958/-, only a sum of ₹ 29,376/- can be added ts determine the assassee's total income on the basis of the deposits appearing in Ms books. 6. In the circumstances of this case, the parties should bear their own costs.
-
1957 (2) TMI 89 - LAHORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the ground that in fact it is a partnership between all the partners of the two component firms. Upto that extent the dictum in the aforesaid authority holds good, but it has no bearing on the interpretation and the application of the pro- visions of section 26A of the Income-tax Act and the rules prescribed under it. In the case of a partnership between two firms, the names and the individual shares of all the partners of the firms which have combined to form a larger partnership must be specified in the instru- ment of partnership and each one of them must personally sign the application for registration. In the absence of it the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to register the assessee firm could not be held to be erroneous. Our answer to the question of law reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment is, therefore, in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs because the Department was not represented before us. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1957 (2) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... provisions of the Limitation Act were not applicable to proceedings under Section 54 of the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act and rejected the contention of the petitioner in that behalf, and if that view is supported by the express exclusion of statutory arbitrations from the operation of Section 37 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, by virtue of Section 46, it is impossible to accept the contention that the Tribunal has acted in any manner contrary to the provisions of Rule 35. The Tribunal could set aside the decision of the arbitrators only on the grounds set out under Section 54-A of the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act and if they did not do so on the ground of the bar of limitation against the Society's claim urged by the petitioner before them, in my opinion, the Tribunal committed no error which would entitle to us to interfere under Article 227 of the 'Constitution. 20. I agree, therefore, with the order discharging the rule with costs. 21. Rule discharged.
-
1957 (2) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ow, or a co-tenure-holder who dies leaving no heir entitled to succeed under the provisions of this Act, the interest in such holding shall pass by survivorship. 5. Pending this appeal the co-widow, viz., Bhikni too died. 6. In consequence, if the co-widow leaving behind no heirs entitled to succeed under the provisions of the Act, the interest in such holding shall pass by survivorship. Since she had left behind one heir-daughter, namely, Guniya and equally Bhungi left behind her three daughters Gulabi, Sulabi and Bulaki, and Gulabi having pre- deceased the mother, Sulabi, Bulaki and Guniya would succeed to the estate of male holder by operation of Section 172(1)(b) read with 171(1)(g) of the Act. Under these circumstances, in respect of the properties conveyed under the third gift deed, dated November 18, 1957, all the three are entitled to 1/3rd share each. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decree of the trial Court stands modified to the above extent. No costs.
-
1957 (2) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... e, do not require that, after the lapse of over four years from the date of the commission of the offence, a young man in the appellant's situation should be sent back to all to serve out the rest of the sentence. We have ascertained from the Advocate appearing for the Government that the appellant has already served a sentence of 11 months and 27 days. Learned counsel for the appellant has also informed us that the appellant was in judicial custody for about eleven months as an under-trial prisoner. In view of all the circumstances of the case, we agree that the interests of justice do not call for being sent back to jail. 14. While therefore, maintaining the conviction of the appellant, K. N. Mehra, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment against him to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof shall stand. With this medication, in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. 15. Appeal dismissed, and sentence modified.
-
1957 (2) TMI 85 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... March, 1952, and, under the said section, the Income-tax Officer could rectify any mistake apparent from the record of assessment within four years from the date. The alleged mistake was corrected in the present case within the prescribed time. The only question is whether there is a mistake apparent from the record of assessment. We have held that a statutory obligation is cast on the Income-tax Officer under section 18A(8) to add the interest payable under sub-section (6) to the tax as determined on the basis of the regular assessment. The Income-tax Officer by mistake did not add the interest payable by the assessee to the tax determined by him on the basis of the regular assessment. He, therefore, committed a clear mistake which is apparent from the record of assessment. In this view, the provisions of section 35 are directly attracted and the Income-tax Officer was within his rights in rectifying the mistake. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1957 (2) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the second partnership deed it is clear that although in the books of account the profits are allocated to the two firms, the profits belong to the constituent partners of those two firms, and it is also clear how those profits are to be divided between the constituent partners of Messrs. Chandulal Dayalal and Messrs. Shantilal Vrajlal & Co. Therefore, if the books of account show what share of profit was allocated to the firm of Messrs. Chandulal Dayalal and to the firm of Messrs. Shantilal Vrajlal & Co., it is merely a matter of arithmetical computation to find out what profits were credited to the constituent partners of the two firms. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in the view that it took that the partnership constituted by the second partnership deed should have been registered by the Income-tax Officer. Therefore, we will answer the first question submitted to us in the negative. The second question does not arise. The commissioner to pay the costs.
-
1957 (2) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reated at the end of the financial year. All that can be said-and that is what Mr. Kolah has said-was that the right to receive payment arose when the goods were sold, and the Tribunal has not drawn a distinction which Mr. Kolah has drawn between the right to receive payment and the creation of the debt. The result is that we must answer the question submitted to us "Accrued to the assessees." We might state before parting with this reference that we are told by Mr. Kolah that the Taxing Department has also assessed Messrs. Shivnarayan Surajmal Nemani to tax in respect of the commission for the period 1st April, 1944, to 31st December, 1944. We are sure that however grave the needs of the country may be, the Taxing Department will not seek to assess two parties in respect of the same income. The Department will have to make up its mind whether it wants to collect the tax from Messrs. Shivnarayan Surajmal Nemani or from the assessees. The assessees to pay the costs.
-
1957 (2) TMI 82 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntity. Now, whoever heard of a reserve being constituted by a minus quantity. This clearly shows that the only difference between account keeping in India and account keeping in United States is that in India you have profit and loss account; the balance at the foot of the account, whether it is profit or loss, after appropriation is carried forward to next year's profit and loss account. In America the profit and loss account is closed every year and whatever the balance it is carried forward to another account described as "undivided profits", and the whole of Mr. Palkhivala's argument is that because the balance of the profit and loss account is carried forward to another account described as "undivided profits", that by itself constitutes reserve. In our opinion, it is impossible to accept that contention in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. The result is that we must answer the question in the negative. The assessee to pay the costs.
-
1957 (2) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s not directly in question before me. The only point that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing under the provisions of Section 33-A (2) and whether the order made without hearing him is illegal and should be set aside. A point has been taken that there is an infringement of Article 14. But I fail to see how such an infringement can be established. The Income Tax Act itself gives alternative remedies and lays down alternative procedures. It is the option of the assessee to take advantage of one remedy or another. After having availed himself of the advantage, it is scarcely open to him to turn round and speak of discrimination. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no ground has been made out for my interference and that this application must be dismissed. The Rule is discharged. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The operation of the order is stayed for a fortnight.
-
1957 (2) TMI 80 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th being landlord of the property and its transfer to the person who was also purchasing the property cannot be said to be of a mere right to sue. The lower appellate Court has, therefore, erred in relying on, ILR 38 Mad 308 , AIR 1916 Mad 473) (1) (A), which does not correctly state the law, and I am further of the view that Seshagiri Aiyar, was right in ILR 44 Mad 539 AIR 1921 Mad 56) (D). As the entire case is before the Bench, one further point requires consideration. The Plaintiff has taken objection to the findings of the two lower Courts about his being entitled to only ₹ 375. But the two Courts have concurred in holding the oral agreement to give 4,000 cocoanuts not proved. They have also held the aforesaid amount to be fair compensation and these findings of fact must stand in second appeal. The result is that the decree of the trial Court is correct, which is restored with proportionate costs throughout, and the decree of the lower appellate Court is vacated.
-
1957 (2) TMI 79 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d only be filed by a person who thought that he had a taxable income and therefore a return showing an income below the taxable limit could not be held, on a construction thereof, to be a return under section 24(1) and consequently the return in the case we were then considering could not be treated as such a return filed under section 24(3). To say that, was not to say that even a return filed in compliance with a notice under section 22(2), if filed belatedly under section 22(3), could not be a return showing an income below the taxable limit." We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the return for the assessment year 1947-48 submitted by the assessee was a return within section 22(1) on which assessment proceedings could validly be taken. It is for this reason that we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. As the assessee has failed he will pay the costs of the reference ₹ 250. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1957 (2) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shed. Again, that is a point which will come up for consideration after the respondents have completed the enquiry and have made their decision. In my opinion the application is entirely premature and should be dismissed. (9) The rule is discharged and all interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. (10)I had by the rule nisi restrained further proceedings before the respondents. Mr. Chakravorty asks me to continue the same until his client can make an application to the Appeal Court for further stay. I will not continue the stay so far as the filing by the petitioner of his explanation is concerned, but except that let further proceedings be stayed for a month, after which any further stay must be obtained from the Court of Appeal, if an appeal is preferred. As the original period for filing the explanation has already expired Mr. Sen suggests that it should be filed within two weeks from date. Let that be done. The order is to be expeditiously drawn up.
-
1957 (2) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that construction which would lead to the least amount of difficulty and which would be most favourable to the assessee. But if the construction is clear, then it is for the Legislature to amend the law so as to avoid hardships being caused to a certain type of assessees. Mr. Palkhivala says that he does not want to give up the contention that was put forward before the Tribunal that a Hindu undivided family would fall in the category of "a parent" referred to in the proviso. How the sons of the assessee who were joint with him can become a parent under the proviso it is rather difficult for us to understand, and however much we may like to stretch the language of a proviso in favour of an assessee, we cannot convert sons into parents. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the case of the assessee does not fall within the second proviso to section 12B(1). We must answer the question submitted to us in the negative. Assessee to pay the costs.
-
1957 (2) TMI 76 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) involves the conception of replacement of the particular machinery or of the particular service connection and examined from this standpoint also it is clear that the phrase 'actual cost to the assessee' which occurs in section 10(5)(a) of the Act must be interpreted to mean the actual cost incurred in installing service connection irrespective of any consideration to the amount actually contributed by the assessee or the amount actually recouped ultimately from the consumers." 30. The decision turned upon a particular term used in the section and it is not of much relevance in considering the case before us. 31. We, therefore, hold that the word "expenses" in the context of the work carried on by the assessee can only mean the amount which the assessee because out of pocket in carrying out the scheme. We answer the two questions accordingly. The assessee will pay the costs of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad. Advocate's fee ₹ 250.
|
