|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 56 of 56 Records
-
1960 (3) TMI 34 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... S.T.C. 194., and an unreported judgment of Khosla, C.J., and Tek Chand, J., in Civil Writ No. 1052 of 1959 decided on the 14th January, 1960). In these circumstances, it is wholly unnecessary to decide whether or not the Assessing Authority could make the final assessment order under section 11(4) of the Act after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year to which the assessment relates. Prima facie there does not appear to be any bar, and to me it appears that the proceedings should only be initiated within the said period of three years and that it is not necessary that they must finish within that period. I, however, express no final opinion on the matter and dismiss this petition on the short ground that the petitioners are, in the circumstances of this case, not entitled to the extraordinary legal remedies sought for by them and that their petition is, in any case, premature. The respondent will have his costs. Counsel fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 33 - BIHAR
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner. It does not contain the name of Mongi Devi. That, below the name of Mahi Ram, both the firms are mentioned, cannot support or justify the inference that both the partners of the original firm have opened an additional place of business. It is indisbutable that M/s. Silk House is a partnership business consisting of two partners, and in terms of sub-section (5) of section 4, unless it can be established that both these partners have set up an additional place of business known as M/s. Modern Dresses, no assessment, in terms of that sub-section, can be justified. 5.. The result is, the Board would set aside the order of assessment passed in this case, and direct that, in the absence of any further reliable evidence to the contrary, the assessment should proceed against M/s. Modern Dresses as an independent concern, which would at least be consistent with the certificate of registration granted to it by the Department. 6.. The petition is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ds to be delivered at Gaya. The assessee in compliance with these instructions actually despatched the goods to Gaya. In doing so, the assessee must be deemed to have agreed to the arrangement that delivery of the goods would be given at Gaya and it was in pursuance of this agreement that the goods were actually delivered there. In these circumstances, it is also clear that the sales themselves were for delivery at Gaya. Since the sales were for delivery at Gaya outside Uttar Pradesh and the goods were actually delivered at Gaya, the assessee was entitled to rebate admissible under section 5 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Consequently, we answer the third question in the affirmative. In view of the circumstance that, as a result of our opinion on the question that we are answering, the assessee is getting the relief for which he came up to this Court, we direct that the assessee shall be entitled to costs of this reference which we fix at Rs. 200. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1960 (3) TMI 31 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lied F.O.R. ex-works or that the seller has not taken any risks so far as loss during transit and that the responsibility for loss was fixed on the railway authority does not, in my opinion, change the characteristics of the transactions and make them transactions in the course of inter-State trade or commerce so long as the sale was concluded within the State of Mysore and the goods were actually delivered to the purchaser within the State of Mysore. I am clearly of the opinion that the transactions relating to the supply of cement to the supply department do not come within the prohibition of Article 286(2) of the Constitution or section 27 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The second contention of Sri Srinivasa Iyengar must, therefore, fail. No other point is raised. In the result, therefore, for the reasons stated above this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fees Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred only). DAS GUPTA, C.J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e manufacturers. The petitioner s learned counsel argues that this addition of such a high percentage of profits is unwarranted, arbitrary and illegal. This contention appears to have some force. But our powers of revision under section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act are limited and confined to interference only on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. In the cases before us this question does not seem to have been raised before the Tribunal, so that the Tribunal had not decided the question, much less, erroneously. Nor can it be said that the Tribunal failed to decide the question, as the question had not even been raised before it. Hence we will not be justified in allowing this contention at this stage. All the contentions raised by the petitioner s learned counsel having failed, we dismiss the revision petitions with costs, fixing the Advocate s fee at Rs. 50 in each case. Petitions dismissed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 29 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1960 (3) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... registered office, the register of members and debenture holders and on this point I am rather inclined to agree, although it may not be possible to furnish all the particulars set out in the form in Part II of Schedule V. However, section 159(2) provides that the said return shall be in the form set out in Part II of Schedule V or as near thereto as circumstances admit. In the circumstances, I accept the application and grant the company and its directors and officers relief from liability for default in complying with sections 210/220 and 159 of the Act provided that within two months statements of income and expenditure and receipts and payments for the year ending July 31, 1958, based on the accounts now maintained by the company are furnished, and also a statement of the particulars required under section 159 of the Act as nearly as possible in conformity with the form set out in Part II of Schedule V of the Act. The parties will bear their own costs on the application.
-
1960 (3) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398 ... ... ... ... ..... rectification of the register dismissed by the learned District Judge, and not having filed a suit to establish their rights as advised by him, are now seeking the same relief under the guise of an application under sections 397 and 398 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to cite any case in which such a course had been permitted, and in my opinion he will never be able to do so, since I consider that a petition under sections 397 and 398 can only be maintained by a person or persons who are shown as members in the register of the company, and if the persons who wish to file such a petition are not shown as members rightly or wrongly they must first have the register rectified before they can bring a petition. I accordingly uphold the objection embodied in the first of the preliminary issues and do not consider that it is necessary to go into the second. I accordingly dismiss the petition with costs to respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Counsel s fee Rs. 100.
-
1960 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the above facts and circumstances of this case, the profits of the assessee were exempt from taxation under the Business Profits Tax Act of 1947 ?
Whether the sum of ₹ 6,00,000 paid by the Government of Bengal during the chargeable accounting year ending on 31st December, 1946, is in the nature of subsidy and as such exempt from business profits tax under clause (c) of the proviso to section 4 of the Business Profits Tax Act ?
Held that:- Neither the letter of the Central Board of Revenue nor the provisions of the Income-tax Act can operate in favour of the contention of the association raised before us and the first question was rightly answered in the negative.
In the present case the payments were made for services rendered to Government and that would negative their being a subsidy. Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the net dividend income of ₹ 47,120 accrued to the assessee in the former Baroda State, or whether it is income accrued or deemed to have accrued to the assessee in British India ?
Whether the assessee is entitled to any concession under the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, with regard to the net dividend income of ₹ 47,120 ?
Held that:- The objection of the assessee is well founded. The Tribunal did not address itself to the question whether the Concessions Order applied to the assessee. It decided the question of assessability on the short ground that the income had not arisen in Baroda but in British India. That aspect of the matter has not been touched by the Bombay High Court. The latter has, on the other hand, considered whether the Concessions Order applies to the assessee, a matter not touched by the Tribunal. Thus, though the result is the same so far as the assessment is concerned, the grounds of decision are entirely different.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in going outside the point of law decided by the Tribunal and deciding a different point of law. The order of the High Court will, therefore, be set aside, and the case will be remitted to the High Court to decide the question framed by the Tribunal. Appeal allowed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the annual cash allowance paid to the appellant in circumstances stated below falls within paragraph 15(1)(i) of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) and is therefore exempt from income-tax?
Held that:- High Court was in error in holding that ₹ 35,807 was not by way of maintenance and therefore was not exempt from taxation under paragraph 15(1)(i) of the Order. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and answer the question in favour of the appellant
-
1960 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there were materials to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the income in the share of the commission agency of the mills was the income of the Hindu undivided family ?
Held that:- The assets still are in the name of Charandas Haridas, and looked again from the same view point, the division has no different signification. What has altered is the status of the family. While it was joint, the Department could treat the income as that of the family; but after partition, the Department could not say that it was still the income of the Hindu undivided family, when there was none. In the face of the finding that this was a genuine document and not a sham, and that it effectually divided the income and, in the circumstances, the assets, the question answers itself in the negative, that is to say, that there were no materials to justify the finding that the income in the share of the commission agency of the mills was the income of the Hindu undivided family. Appeal allowed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the effect of section 24B(1) of the Income-tax Act is that the liability of the executors, administrators or other legal representatives in regard to the tax payable is the same as was the liability of the deceased person and that the tax is one and therefore the liability of the heirs of the deceased was one and joint?
Held that:- Both Kamini Kumar Dutta and the appellant were brought on the record as legal representatives of the deceased. They both admitted the liability of ₹ 58,24,023. The several assessment orders, income-tax assessment orders, excess profits tax assessment and business profits assessment orders, show that the total amount to be realised as tax was ₹ 52,34,663 divided into 8 equal parts. The liability of Kamini Kumar Dutta and his branch of the family alone, as a result of composition, came to an end, but that does not mean that the balance of the tax which was exigible must also be taken to have been satisfied. It only means that to the extent that the amount is realized from Kamini Kumar Dutta and his branch of the family the liability to tax will be taken to have been satisfied and the appellant will be liable for the payment of only the balance and to the extent that he has in his possession any of the assets of the deceased or comes into possession of the assets in future. Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sale of the shares and securities by the administrator of the estate of late Mr. Gannon is not a sale for the purposes of section 12B(1) in view of the third proviso to section 12B(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act?
Held that:- It is necessary to point out here that on the interpretation sought to be placed on the third proviso on behalf of the appellant, the administrator will escape paying tax if he sells the capital assets ; but the legatee will not escape if he sells the capital assets after having received them in specie from the administrator. This is an anomaly which is against the scheme of section 12B of the Act. We are accordingly of the view that the High Court rightly hold that the expression " distribution of capital assets " in the third proviso to sub-section (1) of section 12B of the Act means distribution in specie and not distribution of sale proceeds. Appeal dismissed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a certain sum received by the respondent was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt?
Whether this sum of ₹ 57,435 was liable to income-tax and excess profits tax?
Held that:- The sum of ₹ 57,435 had not been received by the respondent for any injury to any of its capital assets. In our view, the sum was received as compensation for loss of profits for the period during which, it was imagined, the respondent's business would remain stopped before it could be re-started at a new premises. That being so, it was clearly a revenue receipt ; it has not been disputed that if the amount in question was paid as compensation for loss of profit, it would be a revenue receipt and liable to tax. As it was a trading receipt, it cannot be held exempt from tax under section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act either. In the result we answer both the questions framed in this case in the negative.Appeal allowed.
-
1960 (3) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Natural Justice - Confiscation - Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... he Customs House which certainly do not make out a case for exemption from the operation the two notifications. Whether he had or has any other material available to him for showing that the order of confiscation should not have been made is not the subject matter of this application. The order of confiscation made on November 9, 1959 cannot stand and must be quashed. 34.The criminal proceedings in the Barrackpore Court are in respect of violation of section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Under the provision to sub-section (3) of section 23 no such complaint can be made unless the person charged with an offence has been given an opportunity of showing cause that he had permission for doing an act which was prohibited without permission. In this view of the matter the complaint is also bad and the criminal proceedings must be quashed. The customs authorities must deal with the petitioner according to law. The Rule is made absolute but without any order as to costs.
|
