|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 38 of 38 Records
-
1951 (9) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat may claim exemption; because if the law were such, then a settlor could, by giving preference to his kindred to such an extent that no benefit or relief to any member of the public is in substance left, nullify the effect of the decisions in India that a trust cannot be made for the benefit of the poor relatives alone so as to constitute it a valid public charitable trust. But even assuming that the observations of the learned Judge were right and such a settlement is entitled to claim tax exemption, on the provisions of the trust deed before us I am not inclined to hold that this is a case of preference at all; but that this is a case where the settlor desires that his descendants should have the benefit in the main and if there was anything left over then alone other members of the Vaishva Hindoo community should come in. I, therefore, entirely agree with the answers suggested by the learned Chief Justice to the questions referred to us. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1951 (9) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... instance of Sir Jamshedji we raise a further Question No. 6, viz., "Whether the provisions of Section 42 of the Indian Income-tax Act to the extent that it concerns income, profits and gains accruing or arising indirectly is ultra vires of the Legislature?" Having raised that question we answer it by saying that it is unnecessary to answer that question. Strictly the question does not arise out of the order made by the Tribunal but as Sir Jamshedji challenges the validity of the very provisions under which the tax has been charged, the question is implicit in the order of the Tribunal. Sir Jamshedji, says that this point was urged before the Tribunal although no reference has been made to it in the judgment. Having raised this question in our opinion it is unnecessary to decide it on the facts of this case. Assessee to pay the costs of the reference. No order on the notice of motion; no order as to the costs of the notice of motion. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1951 (9) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tions of natural justice which underlie the British Constitution, for it is inconceivable that a representative of His Britannic Majesty could have contem- plated the creation of a body which could wield powers so abhorrent to the fundamental principles of natural justice which all freedom loving peoples share. We hold that, in the absence of some specific law or custom to the contrary, a mere resolution of a Council of Ministers in the Jaipur State without further publication or promulgation would not be sufficient to make a law operative.It is necessary to consider another point. It was urged that section 3(b) of the Jaipur Laws Act of 1923 saved all regulations then in force from the necessity of publication in the Gazette. That may be so, but the Act only saved laws which were valid at the time and not resolutions which had never acquired the force of law. The appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. Appeal allowed.
-
1951 (9) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under Section 10 of the Act but that is no justification for holding that interest on the securities also forms part of the profits of the business, within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Section 12 cannot be invoked unless the previous heads of income are exhausted. As we held that the interest on securities is chargeable under Section 8, the assessee cannot claim that that income should be treated as income from other sources under Section 12. It therefore follows that interest on securities must be treated as income from securities within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act and chargeable under that head, and the assessee, is not entitled to claim relief of earned income in respect of such interest. The question referred to us must be answered against the assessees and we must hold that the income should be treated as income from securities within the meaning of Section 8. As the assessees have failed they must pay to the respondent his costs which we fix at Rs. 250.
-
1951 (9) TMI 35 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y. Goods are despatched-the Calcutta firm undertaking to find buyers for the goods, at prices approved by the applicant, (sub- ject to narrow marginal fluctuations) and guaranteeing payment of the price received, after it has reimbursed itself its expenses and appro- priated to itself its commission or reward for the services rendered. In this process, we consider that the contract of sale takes place between the Calcutta firm and the person who buys of that firm after the goods have reached Calcutta. There has been no sale in this Province and the amounts involved are exempt from assessment under our Act. 10.. In the result, we direct that the amount of Rs. 1,435-12-0 mentioned in paragraph 3 of this order and the amount of Rs. 1,87,182-11-6 mentioned at the beginning of paragraph 5 should be excluded from the taxable turnover, as determined by the Assessing Officer. To this extent the application is allowed, and in other respects it is rejected. Application partly allowed.
-
1951 (9) TMI 34 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vernment provides for appeals against the assessments made by two classes of persons only, viz., a Sales Tax Officer and an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, but not against the assessments of an Additional Sales Tax Officer. Clearly, therefore, the applicant had no right to prefer an appeal to any authority under the Sales Tax Act. That being the position, two courses were open to him-to institute a civil suit or to come to this Court under Article 226. He has come to this Court and we think that it will be more con- venient and be in the interest of justice if we were to exercise our jurisdiction to interfere in a case of this type. We are clear that the assessment was made by the Additional Sales Tax Officer without any jurisdiction. We therefore quash it. Nothing that we have said should be taken to mean that the proper authority cannot proceed with the assessment. 6. For the reasons we allow the application with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 50, if certified. Application allowed.
-
1951 (9) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... J., and acquitted the applicant. We may say that the same curious result follows in the case before us where a small turnover of a man as processor is sought to be combined with his general turnover. Both Mudholkar, J., and the Division Bench negatived such an interpretation and held that the two turnovers cannot be so combined. Following this ruling, we have to reject the interpretation adopted by the Collector of Sales Tax. We will also respectfully invite his attention to the rules of interpretation mentioned in the Nagpur case. We are clearly of opinion that the turnover of goods processed by the dealer must either exceed Rs. 10,000 or his total turnover must exceed Rs. 30,000 before the liability of a dealer to pay sales tax can arise. In the above view the application succeeds. We pass the following order. The application is allowed and the assessment made against the applicant set aside. The applicant is entitled to his costs before the Tribunal. Application allowed.
-
1951 (9) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t, it must be said that no proof was demanded. Even if the statement were true it would not affect the validity of any provision of the Act. The position is, in certain respects, not dissimilar to that which their Lordships of the Privy Council discussed in The Governor-General in Council v. The Province of Madras(1) where the imposition of two distinct taxes-an excise duty and a tax on sales-more or less simultaneously, at the time the goods left the factory or workshop for sale, was considered not open to objection in law. Dual taxation of the kind alleged, where it has actually been levied, on a single transaction of sale, may be attacked on grounds of (1) 1945 1 S.T.C. 135. policy, but cannot be called in question legally, under any of the provisions of our Sales Tax Act. 23.. The case, in my view, has been rightly decided by the learned Sales Tax Commissioner and, as my learned colleague shares this view, the application for revision is dismissed. Application dismissed.
-
1951 (9) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e purchases made from registered dealers only. I think this cannot be the intention of Government. The sales tax on pre-registra- tion purchases has already gone into the price and the retention of 25 or more is itself a penalty for late registration. The Sales Tax Officers ought, I think, to allow the remission of 75 on all pre-registration taxable purchases after adding 10 to arrive at the applicant s sales turnover on the line adopted in new Rule 26A(4)(b) of 29th April, 1948, in composi- tion cases of small registered dealers having a gross turnover not exceeding Rs. 60,000. There seems to be nothing in the findings of the Sales Tax Officer in this case to justify an additional penalty under Section 11(5). ORDER. The application is allowed. The papers of the case should be sent to the Collector of Sales Tax with a direction that he should hear the revision application on merits and pass suitable orders. No order as regards costs before this Tribunal. Application allowed.
-
1951 (9) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in this very case, returns submitted in 1947 and April 1948 came up for disposal by the Sales Tax Officers on 28th June, 1950. (1) 1951 51 Bom. L.R. 280. 17.. For the foregoing reasons we consider that the orders under revision must be modified by deleting the penalties and exempting in full the refreshments (solid) served by the applicants to passengers at their kitchen or on the platform or in the train. 18.. We wanted the parties to give us the exact figures of the tax payable in accordance with the above judgment but the applicants representative pleads his inability to give them and wants that the cases should be remanded to the Sales Tax Officer. In the circumstances we shall send the cases back for the purpose. 19.. We pass the following order ORDER The Sales Tax Officer shall fix the figures of assessment in accordance with the above judgment without any amount of penalty. There will be no order as regards the costs of both the applications before us. Case remanded.
-
1951 (9) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA BHARAT
Loans to managing agent ... ... ... ... ..... I find that the learned Additional City Magistrate s order seems to be correct and the principles do not allow a court to extend the meaning of the word guarantee so as to include within it a joint pro-note executed by the mill and the managing agents for facilitating a loan to the managing agents. The learned Government Advocate has also drawn our attention to an irregularity committed by the learned Additional City Magistrate in this case. As the respondents were exempted from attending the court under an order of His Highness the Maharaja Holkar, the learned Magistrate, instead of examining them under section 342, recorded the statement of the counsel for the respondents. We are sure that this was not warranted by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We entirely disapprove of the procedure adopted by the Magistrate but we do not think the case necessitates a retrial inasmuch as the appeal against the order of acquittal cannot succeed. We, therefore, dismiss it.
-
1951 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Company – Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... at section that we have to find the place of suing. According to the statute, in my opinion, an incorporated company can be sued at its principal place of business or if cause of action arises at some other place and it has got a subordinate place of business, at that place also. In the present case neither of these two conditions are satisfied. Counsel for the plaintiff has stressed the point that the insurers have been writing to them that the case would now be looked into by the New Delhi office, but that does not give them a cause of action. In my opinion the learned Judge was in error in holding that by the change of the Lahore office to New Delhi the courts at Delhi had jurisdiction to try the suit. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of the trial court and make the rule absolute. The plaint will be returned to the plaintiff for filing his suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. The opposite party will pay the costs of the petitioner in this court.
-
1951 (9) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... ng confirmation of the sale provided the price is adequate for otherwise, as Stodart J., pointed out in Rowthmall v. Nagarmall, Offers for the purchase of the property will be merely tentative. A prospective purchaser will not disclose to the liquidator the final figure to which he is prepared to go if his offer is liable to be outbid by someone else when the sale comes up before the court for approval. It is also in our opinion desirable that, in the case of sales effected by an Official Liquidator, a reserve price should, if possible, be fixed and in that event the purchaser at the sale, provided his price exceeds the reserve and there has been no fraud or irregularity, would be entitled to have the sale confirmed notwithstanding the subsequent receipt of a higher offer Soundararajan v. Mahomed Ismail. In these circumstances we dismiss this appeal, but there will be no order as to costs. The order of stay made by this court on 10th August, 1951, is automatically discharged.
-
1951 (9) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF GWALIOR
Winding up – Circumstances in which company may be wound up voluntarily and Power to apply to court to have questions determined or powers exercised
-
1951 (9) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Shares capital – Reduction of ... ... ... ... ..... ase of reduction of capital. It is introducing into the company a system of share capital as required under the company law, in effect, regularising what has been irregularly carried on all this time. In this view, the proper course for the company is to alter the memorandum of association giving notice to its members and applying to the court under section 12 of the Indian Companies Act. I therefore consider that this alteration is necessary to carry on the business of the company more efficiently and economically and in accordance with the existing law governing the companies. I am satisfied that the alterations of the memorandum of association are necessary in the interests of the company and its creditors and depositors, since there is now 3 permanent share capital assured to those whose interests may be considered to be safe. The resolutions stated in the petition are therefore confirmed. Prayer (a) is ordered. Petitioner will have its taxed costs from out of the estate.
-
1951 (9) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ed that the decision was not in a former suit, but whether this were so or not makes no difference for it has been recently pointed out by this Board in Hook v. Administrator-General of Bengal that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of the Code in this respect. I am therefore of the opinion that the question of the right of Amrit Rai Sood to bring a petition for winding up, which depended on his being a creditor of 500 rupees or morn, not having been contested at a previous stage of the proceedings, it is not open to Atma Ram Sahni or the company now to contest that point and that the principle of res judicata applies to these proceedings. Atma Ram Sahni or the company cannot therefore object to the existence of liability of the company to Amrit Rai Sood. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal and uphold the order of the District Judge. The respondent will have his costs in this Court.
-
1951 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the circumstances of this case proceedings under section 34 in respect of the assessment year 1939-40 were validly initiated and completed against the Hindu undivided family, which had ceased to exist then, and an order under section 25A(1) accepting the partition of the Hindu undivided family had already been passed?
Whether section 25A(2) requires that the assessment should be made against each member of the joint family for a proportionate share of the tax and it is only after one of them had failed to pay such share that the Income-tax Officer could proceed to recover it from the others?
Held that:- It does not appear necessary, when proceedings are initiated under section 34 read with section 22 of the Income-tax Act, to issue notice to every member of the family. The position is as if the Income-tax Officer was proceedings to assess the income of the Hindu undivided family as in 1939-40. In our opinion, therefore, that contention that the High Court had held that the proceedings were irregularly initiated and completed they were invalid and no order for assessment could be made. must be rejected.
We are unable to accept the second part of the argument of Mr. Umrigar that it is only on the failure or default of payment by one of the members that the Government has the right to recover that portion of the amount from others. The proviso to section 25A(2) makes the position very clear. In contrast with that the proviso to section 26 shows that when the Legislature wanted to give power to the Income-tax authority to recover from others only on failure of payment by a party, it said so expressly. The absence of similar words in the proviso to section 25A(2) must result in the rejection of this part of Mr. Umrigar's argument. Appeal failed substantially
-
1951 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether or not excess profits tax is payable on the sum of ₹ 20,005 received by the respondent from Messrs. Parakh & Co. by way of rent for the dyeing plant let out to them during the chargeable accounting period?
Held that:- It was a part of the normal activities of the assessee's business to earn money by making use of its machinery by either employing it in its own manufacturing concern or temporarily letting it to others for making profit for that business when for the time being it could not itself run it. The High Court therefore was in error in holding that the dyeing plant had ceased to be a commercial asset of the assessee and the income earned by it and received from the lessee Messrs. Parakh & Co. was not chargeable to excess profits tax. The result therefore is that we hold that the answer returned by the High Court to the question referred to it by the Tribunal was wrong and the correct answer to the question would be in the affirmative and not in the negative. Appeal allowed.
|
