|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 118 Records
-
1975 (8) TMI 110
... ...
... ... ..... estimate made ........... 8.. This court observes in K.T. Antony v. State of Kerala 1976 37 S.T.C. 148. (T.R.C. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1973) This court has dealt with several cases of estimates made on the basis of current consumption. A consumption rate of 9 units to 11 units had been upheld by this court in several tax revision cases. This has been the practice for over a decade now and in the light of these decisions of this court and the practice followed, it will be difficult to say that 10 units of current for crushing one quintal of copra has no basis other than the imagination of the assessing authority. 9.. In the light of what is stated above, we are of opinion that the Tribunal had sufficient materials to estimate the current consumed for sawing timber, and that the Tribunal was justified in relying on the current consumption for estimating the turnover in the oil mill. We, therefore, dismiss the tax revision case with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 150. Petition dismissed.
-
1975 (8) TMI 109
... ...
... ... ..... ng Company Private Limited. 1972 30 S.T.C. 489. On the contrary, we find support from the view taken by the High Courts of Karnataka, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh in S.S. Umadi v. State of Mysore 1974 34 S.T.C. 228., O. Paramasivan v. State of Kerala1971 Tax. L.R. 1241. and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. S.R. Sharma 1973 31 S.T.C. 480., respectively. In view of what is stated above, our answer to the first question referred to us by the Tribunal is in the affirmative. As already stated, we have provided an answer to the second question also in the affirmative in our judgment recorded in Gaekwar Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 1976 37 S.T.C. 129. (Sales Tax Reference No. 7 of 1974). This reference is, thus, decided in favour of the respondent-State of Gujarat and against the assessee. It is accordingly disposed of and it is ordered that the applicant-assessee shall bear the costs of the respondent, State of Gujarat, in this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1975 (8) TMI 108
... ...
... ... ..... ut in his speech in Ormond Investment Co. Ltd. v. Betts 1928 A.C. 143 at 164 (J)., an Act of Parliament does not alter the law by merely betraying an erroneous opinion of it . Legislation founded on a mistaken or erroneous assumption has not the effect of making that the law which the legislature had erroneously assumed to be so. In the cases before us, the legislature proceeded on the basis of the judicial decisions then available to it, and on that basis enacted section 25-FF. We do not think that the general principle of parliamentary exposition or subsequent legislation as an aid to construction of prior Acts can be called in aid for construing the definition clause and section 25-F of the Act. It is for these reasons that we answer the second question referred to us by the Tribunal in the affirmative. This reference is accordingly disposed of. The applicant-company shall bear its own costs and the costs of the opponents in this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1975 (8) TMI 107
... ...
... ... ..... Act. If, on the other hand, the shade trees do not form timber , the sale proceeds of such shade trees will not be turnover as defined In the Act and therefore not assessable to tax taking into account the charging section, section 5 of the Act. We answer the question accordingly. 7. As we indicated earlier the assessee has a contention that the shade trees are not timber. This question has to be determined. Therefore we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal for determination of this question. It will be open to the Tribunal to take evidence for determining this question and the parties will be given sufficient opportunity to state and prove their respective cases. The Tribunal will dispose of the cases in the light of what we have stated in this judgment after entering a finding on the question whether the shade trees are timber or not. 8.. These tax revision cases are disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (8) TMI 106
... ...
... ... ..... the distribution and no inference can be drawn from the meagre profits that it obtained in the transactions that the gunny bags were the subject of an agreement of sale. The reasons given by the Appellate Tribunal are against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case. The insignificant value of the containers compared to the value of the contents and the absence of any freedom to it to fix the price at which it can sell and the further fact that the petitioner disposed of the goods in the same condition in which it received them from the Food Corporation lead to the inference that there was no intention to sell the containers separately. They are seen used only as a cheap means of transport and preservation. Therefore, the conclusion of the sales tax authorities that the gunny bags used as containers of foodgrains is chargeable to sales tax in this case is unsustainable. In this view, I agree with the order passed by my learned brother. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (8) TMI 105
Annual return - General and Penalty to not filing ... ... ... ... ..... y September 30, 1969, and the annual return made up to that date should have been filed with the Registrar on or before November 29, 1969. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 failed to submit the annual return with the Registrar by that date and, therefore, they were in default from November 30, 1969, up to the date of decision of the trial court, that is, September 5, 1973. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed against the respondents is set aside. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are convicted under section 162 of the Act and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Re. 0.50 for every day during the period from November 30, 1969, to September 5, 1973. I also direct under section 626 of the Act that out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 500 (five hundred) shall be paid to the Registrar of Companies towards the costs of the proceedings. The case against respondent No. 3, Naba Kishore Mohanty, is remanded to the trial court for re-trial.
-
1975 (8) TMI 104
Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet ... ... ... ... ..... ade punishable with fine even if the default by him is not willful and he merely fails to take all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions of the section. The intention of the legislature appears to be clear that the directors of a company should incur a penal liability merely on account of the default. The qualifying expression knowingly and wilfully appears to have been deliberately omitted. In their capacity as directors they must be deemed to be parties to the default even though some of them might have been indifferent or negligent in the due discharge of their duties. I am fortified in this view by two decisions in State v. Linkers (Pvt. ) Ltd. 1970 40 Comp. Cas. 17 (Pat.) and Gopal Khaitan v. State 1969 39 Comp. Cas. 150 (Cal.). In view of my above findings, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the learned S.D.M. is set aside. The three respondents are convicted under section 210(5) of the Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 (fifty) each.
-
1975 (8) TMI 91
Whether section 23(4)of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 was attracted to the facts of the case?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. What the appellant proposed to the Central Government was to establish a new undertaking, if we throw aside legal camouflages built around a verb and pierce the corporate veil. Therefore, while jurisdiction in the respondent to apply section 23(4) of the Act is absent, the appellant may be caught within the spider's web of section 22—I do not express myself finally. The appeal must now succeed, but the legal drama may still have its Fifth Act for the appellant—I cannot be futuristic as the full facts will first be examined by Government for that purpose—in case he chooses to apply.
-
1975 (8) TMI 89
Compromise and arrangement, Winding up – Appointment and powers of provisional liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... gal adviser for taking a proper deed from Mr. Malhotra, if it is necessary. (xi) All the workmen and members of the staff who were working and are in the employment of the company till the last day, if they offer for continued employment, Mr. Malhotra would be under an obligation to engage them without varying or altering their conditions of service in a gradual process of starting of the plant and for that he would give appropriate notice. (xii) Whatever records are necessary may be given to Mr. Malhotra except the books of accounts and production records. If, while implementing and carrying into operation this order, any difficulty is experienced, the parties are at liberty to move. Subject to this, Company Application No. 32 of 1975 is hereby granted. Parties to bear their respective costs. It is directed that the plant must be on steam latest by 15th August, 1975. In view of the order herein made, Company Application No. 56 of 1975 stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.
-
1975 (8) TMI 76
... ...
... ... ..... was dishonest, (3) or that he acted in conscious disregard of his legal obligation. Further more it has to be seen whether the party acted bona fide or malafide. In view of these guide lines, it appears that the learned AO has not taken these things into consideration. Here the assessee, on a wrong belief regarding the calculation, paid tax 25 per cent along with return. But on calculation it was found that he is required to pay tax at 40 per cent. That does not mean that he wanted to evade payment of tax or he had any malafide. Rather his intention was bona fide but his calculation was wrong. Even though the appellant continues to go on paying tax on steps were taken to point out that his payment of tax is based on a wrong calculation. In view of all that, I am of opinion that the imposition of penalty is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the penalty imposed are annulled. Penalty if any paid, be refunded.
-
1975 (8) TMI 73
... ...
... ... ..... o taking into account that the deceased was only receiving rent from the cultivating tenant and also taking into account the progressive rigour of the tenancy laws (The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Amendment Act, 1973), which enables the tenant to acquire ownership of the property on payment of 12 times the annual lease amount, the valuation of Rs. 8,600 shown by the accountable person is fair and reasonable and the same should be accepted. 6. The above finding of the Tribunal is purely a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and other materials on record. It is a well settled rule that an inference of fact from proved facts is a question of fact. The inference drawn by the Tribunal from proved facts cannot conceivably given rise to any question of law, which can be referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for opinion of their Lordships. We, therefore, decline to make the reference sought for by the Revenue and reject all these reference applications.
-
1975 (8) TMI 71
... ...
... ... ..... ff available to him. We are of the view that the particular method of accounting adopted by the appellant in crediting the receipts in the case of minimum charged is not also criterion. We are not also able to say that the method adopted in correct. After charging Rs. 10 in the bill for lsquo dinner rsquo by describing it as lsquo minimum dinner charges rsquo it is doubtful whether the difference between normal fare and minimum charges could be taken as anything different from sale even according to the normal principles of accountancy. 10. We have, therefore, on hesitation to hold that even in case of minimum dining charge being made out in the bills, the totality of the receipt under this head will be the consideration for the sale of foodstuff consumed by the customer. Accordingly, the lower authorities were justified in including the disputed turnover in the taxable turnover of the appellant and assessed under the Act. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1975 (8) TMI 70
... ...
... ... ..... al hesitation, the doctrine that if two views are possible in a taxing statute, that which favour the assessee must be preferred . Same view was expressed by the Madras High Court also in the case of S. Kannappa Mudaliar vs. State of Madras 21 STC 41. We would however like to add that our decision is not based on the theory of benefit of doubt but on clear grounds available in favour of the tax payer. 14. Under the circumstances we have to find that Loco is declared goods under s. 14(i) and that the sales which have been taken into consideration upto 3rd March, 1974 could not be treated as sales of multi point goods liable to tax in appellant rsquo s hands because these goods are second sales in appellant rsquo s hands. The appellant is therefore eligible for relief from this turnover of Rs. 2,52,446.10 at three and half per cent. 15. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is eligible for a relief on a turnover of Rs. 2,52,446.10 at three and half per cent.
-
1975 (8) TMI 69
... ...
... ... ..... of first and subsequent sales, in the ratio of 50 50. 25. Consequently we allocate the first sales and second sales 50 50 in the following appeals as follows mdash . . First Sales Second Sales TA 536/74 and M.D. Mohd. Naina and Bros. 48, Sembudoss St., Madras. 1 2,26,191.15 2,26,191.15 TA 534/74 . 3,51,706.50 3,51,706.50 TA 753/74 Govindan and Co. No.1 Ayyappa Chetty St., Madras-1 59,860.00 59,860.00 TA 515/74 Tvl. Reliance Hardware Mart No. 85, Sembudoss St., Madras-1 4,56,435.00 4,56,435.00 TA 812/74 . 4,58,530.83 4,58,530.82 TA 475/74 Tvl. Abdulla and Co. . . and 32/33, Sembudoss St. 23,795.75 23,795.75 TA 582/74 . 1,01,480.65 1,01,480.66 26. For the reasons stated earlier, we allocate the first and second sales in TA 513/74 at Rs. 1,73,800.00 and Rs. 3,66,100.00 respectively. 27. For the reasons stated earlier, we dismiss the appeal in TA 582/74, Tvl. Kamal Hardware. 28. All the above appeals except in TA 586/74 are partly allowed and the appeal in TA 586/74 is dismissed.
-
1975 (8) TMI 68
... ...
... ... ..... such doubt should be resolved in favour of the tax payer. That is the accepted method of interpretation, as pointed out by the Madras High Court in S. Kannappa Mudaliar vs. State of Madras 21 STC 41 and other cases. We would however hasten to add that we do not find any scope for any doubt in the matter. We feel that the interpretation by the authorities that any goods which will have leather as one of its ingredients will have to be treated as leather goods, is not justified by the established canons of interpretation of such Entries. In popular, trade or common parlance foot ball, basket ball, etc. are not considered as leather goods notwithstanding the fact that leather forms an important ingredients. We should therefore give finding in favour of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to a relief on a turnover of Rs. 5,302.45 at 3-1/2 per cent (difference between 7 per cent and 3-1/2 per cent).
-
1975 (8) TMI 67
... ...
... ... ..... m will have to be allowed even according to the authorities for the earlier year under s. 55 vide TC 186 of 69, even if they were unfructified sales. Such a procedure is certainly inconvenient and cumbersome both to the tax-payers and administration. Such claims are always allowed in similar case on the basis adopted by the appellant. Even the assessing authority, after going through the documents and stock registers, decided to allow the same, rightly so in our opinion, vide his notes and report (page 231 of assessment file) but was advised against it by his superiors (page 239 of the file) on mere technical grounds, which are not correct. We are satisfied that this is a case of sales return both within the meaning of law and accounts and hence to be reckoned as a justifiable deduction within the meaning of r. 5-A(b). The appeal has therefore, to be allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is eligible for a reduction at Rs. 76,115.80 at 3-1/2 per cent.
-
1975 (8) TMI 62
... ...
... ... ..... ucks for transportation of the logs, the net profit is being estimated at 10 per cent of the sales and the turnover is generally estimated at 2 times the lease money paid for the forest. In respect of sawn timber, where the assessee owns its own saw-mill, the turnover is usually estimated at 2-1/2 times the lease money and the net profit at above 17-1/2 per cent. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, there are no accounts and there is also no indication regarding the extend of logs and sawn-timber. In these circumstances, keeping in view that fact that the assessee owned a saw-mill up to and including the asst. yr. 1969-70 and a saw-mill as well as a truck for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72 it could not be said that the estimates of turnover at 2.3. times the lease money and the net profit at 13.5 per cent are in any was excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with those estimates. 12. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed, as above.
-
1975 (8) TMI 61
... ...
... ... ..... ncome. 5. We do not find any force in the Departmental appeal. There was no agreement to charge interest and nor was any interest actually charge by the assessee. We are unable to agree with the Departmental Representative that interest was paid to the assessee in the shape of free board and lodging. We find that Shri Manohar Lal Chopra Proprietor of Hindustan Paints is the brother of the assessee. Therefore it was not an unusual thing for the assessee to reside with his brother without paying any rent. This has also nothing to do with charging of interest. We are not aware of any law under which an assessee can be compelled to charge interest on an advance made to his brother. As neither there was any agreement to charge interest and nor was any interest in fact charged by the assessee, there was no question of some amount of any notional interest in his hands. We therefore decline to interfere with the order of the AAC. 6. In the result the Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1975 (8) TMI 60
... ...
... ... ..... ut for the assessee that the assessee does not own any car but owned a jeep which was a 1950 model that this old jeep was exclusively used for the purpose of business and hence no disallowance was called for. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below. It appears that neither the ITO nor the AAC considered the fact the conveyance was an old model jeep. Keeping this circumstance in view and looking to the nature and volume of the assessee rsquo s business we hold that it would be reasonable to restrict this disallowance for such non-business user to 1/5th of the expenses claimed. The assessment shall be modified accordingly. 13. There is another objection relating to disallowance of 1/2 of depreciation on the jeep. This will also be restricted to 1/5th. One other objection relating to disallowance of Rs. 500 out of short recoveries was not pressed and hence rejected. 14. In the result ITA No. 2683 is dismissed and the C.O. 97 allowed in part.
-
1975 (8) TMI 59
... ...
... ... ..... ime of the raid. This is a circumstance that cannot be ignored. Cumulatively, these facts do not show that Bhagwandas could not have had Rs. 5,000 lying as cash at home. The probabilities cannot be said to be against Bhagwandas in this regard. So far as the assessee is concerned, it has identified the creditor and it has also shown that he was a man of means and that he confirmed having advanced Rs. 30,000. The evidence on record does show that Bhagwandas could have advanced Rs. 30,000. In other words, the assessee must be deemed to have discharged the burden that lay on it under s. 68 to prove that nature and source of this sum of Rs. 30,000. The result is we delete the addition of Rs. 10,000 sustained by the AAC in this regard. 8. So far as the appeal by the Department of Income-tax is concerned, we have already held no addition is called for on the facts of the case. 9. In the result ITA No. 307 (by the assessee) is allowed and ITA No. 3075 (by the Department) is dismissed
|
