Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1964 1964 (1) 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 51 of 51 Records

• 1964 (1) TMI 35
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... entioned in section 8(1) only if they are sold to the persons mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 8(1). If they are not sold to those persons and the tax payable on the turnover of their sales is governed by sub-section (2) of section 8 it is to be calculated as if it were a tax payable under the State Act, i.e., the rates mentioned in the State Act are to be applied to the turnover of that sale. The Sales Tax Authorities charged sales tax on the sale of packing material at the correct rate. Though I have found that the petitioner should not have been assessed under the Central Act, its petition should be dismissed because it had an alternative adequate remedy open to it by means of an appeal. It should not be permitted to short-circuit the departmental remedy by applying for certiorari See C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer 1961 41 I.T.R. 425.. In the result, the petition should be dismissed but without any order as to costs. PATHAK, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 34
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ut be proper to stay the actual recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue till the final conclusion of those prosecutions. It must be added that in none of the petitions any specific ground assailing the notices issued to some of the petitioners by the Tahsildar under section 146 of the Land Revenue Code has been taken and none was urged before us. It is plain from what we have said above that the notices issued to the petitioners under section 22(4) cannot be held to be invalid merely because after the issue of those notices the Sales Tax Officer has not yet, after hearing the petitioners, arrived at a definite conclusion that they had not in fact paid into the treasury the amounts now claimed from them. 19.. For these reasons, all these applications are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee in each case is fixed at Rs. 100. The outstanding amount of the security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner in each case. Applications dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 33
  

  Whether the relief of repayment has to be sought by the taxpayer by an action in a civil court?

  Whether such an order can be made by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?

  Held that:- Appeal allowed. The period of limitation prescribed for recovery of money paid by mistake under the Limitation Act is three years from the date when the mistake is known. If the mistake was known in these cases on or shortly after January 17, 1956, the delay in making these applications should be considered unreasonable. If, on the other hand, as Mr. Andley seems to argue, the mistake was discovered much later, this would be a controversial fact which cannot conveniently be decided in writ proceedings. In either view of the matter we are of opinion the orders for refund made by the High Court in these seven cases cannot be sustained.

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 25
  

  General provisions with respect to memorandum and articles - Effect of memorandum and articles

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 24
  

  Shares warrants and entries in register of member, Charges – Rectification of register of Register of mortgages, inclusive of debenture holders, must be posted up-to-date

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 23
  

  Winding up - Preferential payments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d in section 230(1), Indian Companies Act, 1913. In this view. Special Appeal No. 826 of 1962 is dismissed. Special Appeal No. 525 of 1962 is allowed in part. The judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned company judge. On executing an indemnity bond and on furnishing a guarantee from a scheduled bank the appellant shall be entitled to payment. The scheduled bank shall guarantee immediate payment into court of such sums as the learned company judge may direct in respect of the debentures of the second series which may hereafter be presented and found entitled to payment. The guarantee shall extend to the payment in the aggregate of such sum as is actually to be paid to the appellant. The guarantee shall last for such a period of time as the court may fix having regard to the period of limitation applicable to claims that may be made on the debenture scrips of the second series. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their costs of both the appeals.

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 5
  

  Construction of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by Act 25 of 1933 questioned

  Held that:- tion was to remove the period of limitation in respect of any assessment against any person, the proviso would not have been added as a proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34, which deals with completion of an assessment, but would have been added to sub-section (1) thereof.

  The said proviso would not save the time-limit prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Act in respect of an escaped assessment of a year other than that which is the subject-matter of the appeal or the revision, as the case may be. It follows that the notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Act issued in the present case was clearly barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 4
  

  Whether the view of the High Court was that the provisions of the second proviso to section 34(3) would not apply to a case where the escaped assessment is of an amount less than a lakh of rupees and more than eight years have elapsed?

  Held that:- Apparently, the High Court has overlooked the fact that the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 was amended first by Act 25 of 1953 and then by Act 18 of 1956. By the amendment of 1953, for the word " sub-section ", the words " section limiting the time within which any action may be taken or any order, assessment or reassessment may be made " were substituted. By the amendment of 1956 it now stands as already quoted by us. If the proviso in its present form applies here it would govern the whole of section 34(1) and would consequently include even an escaped assessment with respect to which limitation is provided in clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 34(1). The result, in our opinion, would be the same even if the case were to fall to be governed by the Amending Act of 1953, though not by that of the Amending Act of 1956. We may add that the amendment of 1953 took effect from April 1, 1953, and that of 1956 from April 1, 1956.

  For the reasons stated above, the decision of the High Court is clearly wrong.Appeal allowed. Case remanded.

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 3
  

  Writ jurisdiction - 'Person aggrieved'

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Central Board of Revenue in letter No. F. No. DA/LLC. B-3/57 dated 8th May, 1957. That letter is not before us. If there is any truth in this contention, then, the more appropriate course that the petitioner should have adopted is to take up the matter in revision to the Government under Section 36. 5.It was contended by Sri M. Krishnaswamy that the Central Excise Authority had no competence to levy additional duty retrospectively for the period mentioned earlier. This contention is opposed to Rule 10 of the rules framed under the Central Excise Act. It is not the case of Shri Krishnaswamy that rule 10 is invalid. If rule 10 is valid, as in our opinion it is, then the Central Excise Authorities had competence to make the additional levy. The fact that manufacturer cannot pass on the duty in question to his customers, is altogether an irrelevant circumstance. 6.For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100/-.

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 2
  

  Statements made before the Customs Officer were valid, if signed by the appellants and their lawyer - Smuggled gold - Writ jurisdiction

  ---

• 1964 (1) TMI 1
  

  Reassessment notice - two conditions that (a) that the ITO must have reason to believe that the income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment or have been under-assessed, and (b) that he must have also reason to believe that such under-assessment of the income has occurred by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the particular year - above conditions not satisfied - appeal dismissed

  ---

123