|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 68 of 68 Records
-
1964 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Whether respondent No. 1, the Union of India, is entitled to claim that the tax due to it from respondent No. 2, M/s. R. K. Das and Co., on account of the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 has priority and precedence over the decretal amount due to the appellant, M/s. Builders Supply Corporation, from respondent No. 2?
Held that:- It is difficult to accept the argument that the application of the doctrine of priority of arrears of tax over private debts can be said to be displaced by any of the provisions of the Recovery Act. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was entitled to claim priorty in the matter of arrears of tax due from respondent No. 2 over the decretal debt due to the appellant from the same debtor. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying solely for the refund of money alleged to have been illegally collected by the State as tax, is maintainable under article 226?
Whether a writ of mandamus, if a case for its issue is made out, can be issued under article 226 for the refund of taxes collected prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, though the final assessment was made subsequent to January 26, 1950, and was later set aside by the appellate authority?
Held that:- Normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The appellant has not made out any case for the issue of a writ of mandamus for the said purpose, thus the High Court rightly refused the writ of mandamus for the recovery of the sum of ₹ 62,809-5-2 alleged to have been realised by the respondent between 1944 and 1948. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the deed, Annexure " B " aforesaid, amounted to a transfer of assets to the three minor children aforesaid so as to attract the provisions of section 16(3) (a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- There was no direct or indirect transfer of assets to the minor children by the assessee within section 16(3)(a)(iv). Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (11) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether rule 8-A is framed in exercise of the power reserved under section 26 of the Abolition Act to effectuate the provisions of clause (d) of section 6, and adjustment under the rule can only be made in respect of agricultural income-tax payable for any period prior to the date of vesting?
Held that:- Rule 8-A requires the Collector to adjust the liability to pay agricultural income-tax due by the intermediary against compensation payable to him. This order, the High Court has directed the Collector to make in favour of the respondent, but in making the order the High Court has proceeded on the assumption that compensation bonds remain to be delivered to the respondent. For reasons already set out, there are no materials on which the truth of the assumption may be ascertained. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for deciding whether there are any compensation bonds remaining to be delivered, and if not, whether by any appropriate order or direction, adjustment of tax liability against compensation due to the respondent, which has been directed by the High Court under rule 8-A can be made effective.
-
1964 (11) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the dividend was paid out of the net profits on hand of the year 1952?
Whether the profits of the year 1951 on which rebate was given were availed of for distributing dividend?
Held that:- In this case, however, the High Court has declined to exercise its discretion on the ground that disputed questions of fact arose which it would not be justified in considering in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. There is again no ground for holding without full investigation that any injustice patent or otherwise has resulted. It is true that the Income-tax Act provides no appeal against the order passed under section 35(10). But that cannot by itself be a ground for ordering the High Court to entertain a petition which, in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has declined to entertain. It may be noticed that a party aggrieved by an order under section 35(10) is not without a remedy. An application under section 33-A(2) to the Commissioner of Income-tax for correcting the order undoubtedly lies against an order under section 35(10). Appeal dimissed.
-
1964 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant was concerned in committing the offence of importing gold illegally ?
Held that:- Mere finding of fact that a person is in possession of smuggled goods does neither imply that the Collector of Customs had considered the question of the person's being concerned in the commission of the offence of illegal importation of the goods nor in any way justifies the conclusion that the person must have been so concerned. Other circumstances indicating that the person had some connection with the importation of the goods prior to their actual import have to be established. In the present case no such circumstances have been alleged which would connect the appellant with the importing of the smuggled gold recovered from his person. There is no mention of any such circumstances in the order of the Collector or even in the reply affidavit filed in the High Court by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, New Delhi, though the appellant had said in ground No. C of the writ petition that there was absolutely no material before respondent No. 3 on which he could have come to a finding that the petitioner had imported the said gold.
We may also mention here that there is no allegation that the appellant himself smuggled the gold from outside the country. We do not agree with the High Court that it was implicit in this order that the Collector was fully satisfied that Shri Jagdish Singh was concerned in the offence described in S. 167(8) of the Act. Appeal allowed.
-
1964 (11) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e sentence. As the appellant is a young man and deserves to be given an opportunity to reform himself, I order that the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- may be substituted by a sentence of six months R.I., running concurrently, and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for each of the two offences against the I.P.C., and, in default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The conviction under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, with a sentence of six months R. I., running concurrently, is also upheld. Subject to the above mentioned modifications the appeal is dismissed. The appellant, who is on bail, will surrender and serve out the remaining period of his sentence. 7.A notice shall also issue against Bansi (C. W. 1) under Section 479A(1) Cr. P. C. calling upon him to show cause why a complaint should not be made against him for fabricating evidence and giving false evidence.
-
1964 (11) TMI 1 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Family property - Whether the status for the assessee was rightly determined as HUF ... ... ... ... ..... ct is whether the assets in his hands belonged to him alone or to a different entity, viz., his undivided family. As the wife and daughters constituting the other members of his undivided family did not have any rights of ownership over the assets, the assets belonged to him alone on the material dates. It may be that if the rights of maintenance of the assessee s wife and daughters take the form of debts owed by the assessee, the amount of the net wealth would be affected. But this question does not arise for our consideration in this reference. The assets forming the subject-matter of the returns belonged to the assessee as an individual and not to his undivided family. We accordingly answer the reference in the negative. As there was a difference of opinion between the different High Courts on the difficult point of law involved, the parties will bear their own costs. Advocate s fee is fixed at Rs. 250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only). Reference answered in the negative
|
