|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 11 of 11 Records
-
1958 (6) TMI 11
... ...
... ... ..... n accordance with the custom might on that account increase the contribution given by him pursuant to the custom, or perhaps make up his mind to make such a contribution which possibly he would otherwise have omitted to do. I have now, I think, dealt with the essential points taken in Mr. Magnuss very able and careful argument. I hope I have done justice to it, but, for the reasons I have endeavored to state, I have come to a clear conclusion that the decision of the special commissioners and the judgment of the judge in this case were right and, accordingly, that this appeal fails and should be dismissed. Sellers, L.J. I agree. As I am so much of the same opinion as my Lord and as we are upholding the judge, I hope it will not be thought to be any disrespect to the interesting and sustained argument of Mr. Magnus if I add no further reasons of my own. Pearce, L.J. I also agree and for the same reasons. Appeal dismissed. Solicitors Withers & Co; Solicitor, Inland Revenue.
-
1958 (6) TMI 10
... ...
... ... ..... d in rule 3 of Case III call for the use of certain factors in order to arrive at this conventional figure, upon which such an assurance company as the respondent society is required to pay tax in respect of the annual profit of its life assurance business carried on in this country." That being so, it being the case that for some 40 years taxation of a life insurance company under Case I of Schedule D was to all intents a dead letter, one arrives at this That, if the Crowns argument is right, the inclusion in the Relief Order of an enterprise carrying on the business of life insurance would have been there for purely theoretical interest in that only theoretically and not practically did such a life insurance company earn actual trading profits liable to tax. For these reasons and the reasons given by my Lord I would dismiss this appeal. Pearce, L.J. I agree with what my Lords have said and II have nothing to add. Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
-
1958 (6) TMI 9
... ...
... ... ..... ny. The fact that the claim of the managing agents has been satisfied or foregone to the extent of ₹ 13 lakhs should also be disclosed in the balance sheet. There will be this further condition to the sanction of the scheme that if the company does not or is unable to pay any dividend to the share-holders by 31-12-1961, this fact should be brought to the notice of the court and the court will then be at liberty to give direction for changing the management of the company if it thinks fit to do so, or to take such other steps as, in the circumstances then existing, appears to the court to be proper. 10. The fact of payment to the sundry creditors and about the relinquishment of the claim to the extent of ₹ 13 lakhs to be communicated to the auditors as soon as such payment or relinquishment is made. 11. Operation of the order is stayed for 3 weeks. Costs of the petitioner as well as of the respondent to come out of the assets of the Company. Certified for counsel.
-
1958 (6) TMI 8
... ...
... ... ..... Therefore, this particular contention was not expressly negatived by the Court. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary in view of this observation of Mr. Justice Tendolkar expressly to decide in this revision application that the provisions of Order XXXVII do not apply to a suit to which the Bombay Money-lenders Act of 1946 applies. It would be sufficient to say that looking to the provisions of that Act if a suit is filed under Order XXXVII and if the Money-lenders Act applies to such a suit, in any view of the case unconditional leave must be given to the defendant.” I would, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Judge and grant unconditional leave to the defendant to defend the suit. Mr. Shah also wanted to make certain submissions on the merits of the matter. In view of my decision with regard to the provisions of the Money-lenders Act it is unnecessary to consider that aspect of the matter. Rule absolute. Costs of the revision application costs in the cause.
-
1958 (6) TMI 7
... ...
... ... ..... the law has given this facility and this right to a private complainant which did not exist before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code, this right has been given for being exercised and not for circumventing the provisions of Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the view of the learned Session Judge that in this case appeal did not lie at the instance of the complainant and that he could file a revision petition under Section 435 read section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. In this view, therefore, an appeal lay and the complainant not having taken requisite steps for filing the appeal, the revision proceedings at the instance of the complainant are incompetent. In this view, therefore, therefore, the reference cannot be accepted. It is not necessary in view of what I have held to go into the merits of the case. 6. In the result, therefore, the reference is rejected and the revision shall stand rejected. Reference rejected.
-
1958 (6) TMI 6
... ...
... ... ..... ointed out by the Tribunal existed during the proceedings of Harihara Iyer and, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not entitled to rely upon that evidence in these proceedings. In this view, there is no legal evidence whatsoever to support the finding of the Tribunal. Considering the cases also from another point of view the conclusions arrived by the Tribunal are based upon evidence which is inadmissible in these proceedings. To conclude, there are no materials for the Tribunal to hold that the business belonged to Choodamani Iyer and Harihara Iyer as an "association of persons". From this it follows that an assessment in these proceedings as on an "association of persons" is not valid in law. Our answers to questions Nos. 3 and 4 are in the negative. We have already indicated our views regarding questions Nos. 1 and 2. This reference is answered accordingly. The assessee is entitled to his costs which we fix at ₹ 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1958 (6) TMI 5
... ...
... ... ..... contended by the assessee, that some subordinate officer of the Excise Department made the statement either recklessly or actuated by malice against him. In the circumstances we hold that the assessment violates the principles of natural justice and answer in the negative the only question referred in consequence of the order in O.P. No. 229 of 1955 and the first question referred in consequence of the order in O.P. No. 228 of 1955 as follows, namely, that the disallowance of a sum of ₹ 51,499-7-6 out of the amount claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure for the year 1124 in the assessment of 1950-51 and the disallowance of a sum of ₹ 60,000 out of the amount claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure for 1125 in the assessment year 1951-52 were not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. We also order the respondents to pay the costs of the assessee-petitioner, including advocate's fee of ₹ 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1958 (6) TMI 4
... ...
... ... ..... outside the State within the meaning of Article 286(1) of the Constitution between the period 26th January, 1950, and 31st March, 1950, is not chargeable to sales tax. 2(ii) The President s order C.O. No. 7 Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, dated 26th January, 1950, under Article 286(2) does not enable the Government to continue to levy sales tax until 31st March, 1951, notwithstanding that such levy offends Article 286(1) of the Constitution, and such levy is void. This reference is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Having regard to the fact that the assessee has only partly succeeded in this reference, he will bear his own costs of this reference. The fee deposited by him will be refunded. SOMNATH IYER, J.-I agree. Order. Civil Petition No. 113 of 1954. The answers to the questions referred to us in this petition will be the same as are given by us in C.P. No. 117 of 1954. The fee deposited by the assessee will be refunded to him. References answered accordingly.
-
1958 (6) TMI 3
... ...
... ... ..... ould not be liable to the assessment of any tax at all. If, on the contrary, the authorities find that actually there was sale of goods by the petitioner for which he received payments in specie, then there is no reason why they should not have jurisdiction to assess him. We therefore hold that in this case, as the facts stand, the petitioner cannot be held to be a dealer within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act and he is not liable to be registered or assessed, simply because of the work which he carries on in execution of his contract of building. It must also be held that to the extent that the definition of sale or sale price has been enlarged in the Act to include materials supplied in execution of such contracts, without any separate agreement for them, they must be held to be ultra vires. We accordingly allow the application and make the rule absolute but in the circumstances we would make no order for costs. MEHROTRA, J.-I agree. DEKA, J.-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1958 (6) TMI 2
... ...
... ... ..... cerned. The parties will prepare a memo of calculation on the basis of our decision in order that the amount to be refunded to the plaintiff by the defendant may be embodied in the decree. The plaintiff will be entitled to interest from the date of the suit till the date of payment on the amount so refundable to him at 6 per cent. per annum. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout. This appeal coming on this day (27th June, 1958), for orders as to the ascertainment of the amount refundable to the appellant (plaintiff), upon perusing the memo of calculation filed by the appellant showing the amount refundable to him, the Court made the following order A decree will be prepared on the basis of the figures furnished by Mr. S. Ramamurthy in his memo. A copy of this memo has been served on the Government Pleader quite a long time ago and nothing has been said on behalf of the Government against the correctness of the figures therein. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1958 (6) TMI 1
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... t, 1954 and the order of Shri B. N. Banerjee dated the 6th of July, 1954 as set out in paragraph 2 (m) of the affidavit of H. R. Syiem. I issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to them. There will be no order as to costs. If the respondents wish to re-hear the matter they will intimate to the petitioner the date of hearing such notice to be issued within a month from date. It will not be necessary to issue any fresh show-cause notice. If the notice is so issued, then the goods will remain in the custody of the respondents pending the disposal of this case but they will not sell or dispose of the same. This, however, does not mean that the respondents will not be able to issue a fresh show-cause notice, if they so wish. But in that event if a new show cause notice is issued it must also be issued within a month from date. If no notice is issued within a month, the petitioner will be at liberty to take steps for return of the goods.
|
