Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1955 1955 (12) 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 21 to 29 of 29 Records

• 1955 (12) TMI 33 - HYDERABAD, HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... esaid orders and notices but if it is necessary, these orders and notices are deemed to have been and are hereby quashed by the issue of writ of certiorari. It follows from our decision that as the applicant is not liable to pay tax as a dealer other than the tax payable as a sales manager on behalf of the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., the demand by the department for payment of sales tax on the applicant as a dealer under the circumstances is illegal and respondents 1 and 2 are directed not to demand from the applicant any sales tax on account of sale of cement by the applicant which he makes on behalf of the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., in pursuance of the agreement dated 21st April, 1954, or to demand from the applicant any amounts collected by him from the customers conditionally during the period when the liability to tax has been contested and which are refundable to customers. The application is allowed with costs which we fix at Rs. 100. Application allowed.

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... court of law. But it was urged that though the Union of India and the States may sue or be sued, this is not so for every purpose, and that the State is not a person for the purpose of recovery of a tax paid under a mistake of law. The learned Advocate-General conceded that when the payment of tax was not voluntary, but was paid under protest, the State would be sued though not under section 72. If the State can be sued for refund of tax paid under protest, the suit must fall under section 72 and if the State is a person within the meaning of section 72 when the payment of tax is made under protest, it is difficult to hold that the State is not a person when a suit against it is for the refund of tax which is paid under a mistake of law though not under protest. For all these reasons, in my opinion, the State is liable to refund the tax which was paid to it under a mistake of law. BY THE COURT This appeal is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... appliance . In the Indian Customs Tariff, (40th Issue) referred to above, passenger lifts and component parts and accessories thereof have been put under item 72 (4) while we find separate mention in item 73 of electric instru- ments, apparatus and appliances, which are treated apparently as distinct from passenger lifts. In our opinin, this application deserves to succeed in part. We, accordingly, allow the application in part and holding that this is a case falling under clause (a) and not under clause (b) of sub-section (i) of section 6, direct that the general tax at the rate of half an anna in the rupee shall be levied on the applicants turn- over in respect of sales or supplies of the constituent parts of the lifts in question calculated at 80 per cent of the amounts charged by the applicants to their customers in respect of the supply and installation of those lifts. We direct that the orders of the lower authorities shall be modified accordingly. Ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether certain sales of goods made by Shri Ganesh Jute Mills, Ltd., to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Supplies, are to be deducted from the taxable turnover of the mills so as to be exempt from sales tax demanded by the Commercial Tax Officer of the State of West Bengal?

  Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Restore the orders passed by the Single judge of the Calcutta High Court, with costs throughout

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Oppression and mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398 and Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Compromise and arrangement

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r is not acceptable to the opposite side. I invited suggestions in order to discover whether the parties would be able to agree on a common name. One side suggested four names and the other side suggested four names, but, there is no individual common to the two lists. It is by no means easy to discover one among the shareholders who is generally acceptable at this stage. I then enquired for the name of a member of the local bar and the name of Mr. K. Ramachandran of Paramakudi was suggested by one side. To that name the other side had no objection. I therefore appoint him as an administrator in the place of Sheik Dawood Sahib, pending further orders. I also direct, since that seems to be the best thing in the interest of the company and the shareholders, that he should be the chairman of the board of administrators. Mr. Ramachandran can apply for his remuneration at a later stage, and he may also apply for directions should the need arise. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 19 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
  

  Powers of SEBI and Prospectus – Registration of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ition that a mere omission to state facts in the circular does not amount to a misrepresentation which would give rise to any cause of action, unless the effect of the omission is to render untrue or at least misleading some positive statement therein. His Lordship then dealt with the circular, referred to the pronouncement in the judgment of Sir George Jesse M.R. in Smith v. Chadwick 1884 9 App. Cas. 127 to the effect that, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the omission to state even material facts would not give rise to any cause of action unless the effect of the omission was to render untrue or at least misleading some positive statement, and held that the circular was not false or misleading. His Lordship then continued In the result, in my judgment, the plaintiff company is not entitled to any of the injunctions for which it asks, and consequently the motion must be dismissed with costs. Motion dismissed. Solicitors Burnett and Co. Slaughter, and May.

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether section 5(1) of the Act was discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution?

  Held that:- The only relief which the petitioners would have been entitled to in that event would have been one in regard to the re-assessment proceedings for the year 1942-43 which were pending before the Income-tax Officer by virtue of the notice under section 34 issued by him to the petitioners on the 19th March, 1954. The petitioners are, however, entitled to succeed on the alternative contentions which were raised by them as the result of the conclusion which we have reached above in regard to the proceedings pending before the Commission having become discriminatory after the 26th January, 1950, by reason of section 5(1) of the Act having become unconstitutional after the inauguration of the Constitution on that date.

  In the result, the petitioners will be entitled to the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the report of the Income-tax Investigation Commission dated the 29th August, 1952, and the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer for the years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1943-44 to 194849 as being unconstitutional, null and void, and also to the issue of a writ of prohibition against the respondents from implementing the findings of the Investigation Commission referred to above with regard to the year 1942-43 and we do order that such writs do issue against the respondents accordingly. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1955 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether there is a rational basis of classification to be found in the enactment of section 5(1) of the Act?

  Whether the same class of persons were intended to be and could be dealt with under the provisions of section 47 of the Travancore Act XXIII of 1121?

  Held that:- The fixation of the date for references for investigation by the Government to the Commission, viz., the 16th February, 1950, was not an attribute of the class of substantial evaders of income-tax which were intended to be specifically treated under the drastic procedure prescribed in the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 but was a mere accident and a measure of administrative convenience. The date of such references could, without touching the nature and purpose of the classification, be extended by the Travancore Legislature by a necessary amendment of the Travancore Act XIV of 1124, and if such an amendment had been grafted on the Act as originally passed, no one belonging to the particular class or category of substantial evaders of income-tax could have complained against the same.

  Section 5(1) of the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 which has to be read for this purpose in juxtaposition with section 47 of the Travancore Act XXIII of 1121 cannot be held to be discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. The proceedings which took place in the course of investigation by the Commission up to the 26th January, 1950, were valid and so also were the proceedings during the course of investigation which took place after the inauguration of the Constitution on the 26th January, 1950, under which the petitioner, as a citizen of our Sovereign Democratic Republic acquired inter alia guarantee of the fundamental right under article 14 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

12