|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 68 Records
-
1963 (3) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sum of Rs. 25,200 received by the assessee in the circumstances stated above was a revenue income liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act or a capital receipt not liable to tax under the said Act ?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. What has been paid to the appellant is his salary in lieu of notice. If that is the true position then the amount paid is taxable under section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is not compensation for loss of employment within the meaning of Explanation 2 thereto.
-
1963 (3) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amount of Rs. 51,000 being the value of high denomination notes encashed by the assessee, has been validly taxed as profits from some undisclosed business?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. High Court held on the above facts and circumstances that there were materials to show that Rs. 51,000 did not form part of the cash balance, and the source of money not having been satisfactorily proved, the Department was justified in holding it to be assessable income of the assessee from some undisclosed source.
-
1963 (3) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT
Whether income arising to Mrs. C. M. Kothari and Mrs. D. C. Kothari from the property arose indirectly out of the assets transferred indirectly by their husbands so as to attract the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii)?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. An intimate connection between the two transactions, which were prima facie separate, is thus clearly established and they attract the words of the section, namely, " transferred directly or indirectly to the wife ". The High Court was in error in ignoring these pertinent matters. The High Court also overlooked the fact that the purchase of the house at first was intended to be in the names of the three partners of the firm. It is difficult to see why the ladies were named as the vendees if they did not have sufficient funds of their own. They could only buy the property if someone gave them the money. It is reasonable to infer from the facts that before the respective husbands paid the amounts, they looked up the law and found that the income of the property would still be regarded as their own income if they transferred any assets to their wives.
-
1963 (3) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the dividends paid by j. Thomas & Co. Ltd., to Mrs. Judith Thomas, grossed up to the sums of Rs. 97,091/-, Rs. 78,272/, Rs. 1,00,000/. and Rs. 16,385/respectively for the four years in question could be included in the income of Mr. P.J.P. Thomas and be taxed in his hands under the provisions of section 16 (3) (a) (iii) of the Indian lncome-tax Act?
Whether the transfer of shares made by the assessee in favour of Mrs. Judith Knight on December 10, 1947 was to take effect only from the date of their marriage?
Whether the dividends referred to above could be included in the total income of Mr. P. J. P. Thomas under the provisions of sec. 16 (1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act?
Held that:- Allow the appeals and answer the question referred to the High Court in favour of the assessee. Sub-cl. (iii) of s. 16 (3) (a) is not attracted to these cases.
-
1963 (3) TMI 44 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce to the date of the Act coming into operation. In the result, our opinion on the question referred to us is that under section 5(3)(a) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, if any sale or sales have taken place in respect of any specified goods coming under section 5(3)(a) prior to the commencement of the Act, no tax is leviable on a sale of those goods taking place after the commencement of the Act, if any of the dealers who have effected sale of the specified goods earlier to the commencement of the Act is liable to tax under section 5 of the Act, i.e., in consequence of transactions effected after the Act came into operation. It follows that the view expressed in the decision reported in B. P. Krishnamurthy v. State of Mysore 1962 40 Mys. L.J. 436 13 S.T.C. 436., to the effect that the first or earliest dealer for the purpose of section 5(3)(a) has to be determined only with reference to the period after the Act came into force is overruled. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1963 (3) TMI 43 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rity etc. What he is further authorised to do is wholly beside the point. The moment a dealer has an agent, service on him would be good service for purposes of the Act. Mr. Atma Ram, however, relies on the following decisions, Batna v. Deva Singh A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 733., Gopiram Bhagwan Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar 1956 30 I.T.R. 8., and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Baxiram Rodmal 1934 2 I.T.R. 439., for the contention that service of notice on the agent is not good service. All these cases have no relevancy so far as the present matter is concerned. These cases were not concerned with the interpretation of the rules which are in point in the present case. In these cases, there was no rule similar to rules 2 and 66 of the rules made under the Act. That being so, no assistance can be derived from these authorities. For the reasons given above, this petition fails and is dismissed. The respondent will have his costs which are assessed at Rs. 32. Petition dismissed.
-
1963 (3) TMI 42 - MAHARASHTRA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a large percentage of available power is required to be used and in that sense a tractor may also be used for the purpose of agriculture when for the particular purpose large percentage of power is required to be used. In other words, a tractor may be brought in use for large scale agriculture, but the evidence discussed by the Tribunal and to which we have made a reference in brief, shows that the principal and primary use of a tractor is not for agriculture. That being the position, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of tractors did not fairly and squarely fall under entry No. 9 of the Act The Tribunal also has found as a fact that the sales effected by the applicant had not been exclusively to agriculturists. In the circumstances, answer to the question referred to us should be against the dealer. We accordingly answer the question in the negative. The applicant-dealer shall pay the costs of the department. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1963 (3) TMI 41 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of enhancement cannot be read into it. The Tribunal thought that instead of itself increasing the assessment and disallowing the deduction it could direct the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the matter on the evidence before him. We need not be detained here any further, having regard to the fact that clause (iii) of sub-section (4)(a) clothes the Tribunal with wide powers, i.e., it may pass such other orders as it may think fit. In this case, it cannot be postulated that the order of the Tribunal is in any way perverse. There can, therefore, be little doubt that the order impeached comes within the purview of section 21, sub-section (4)(a)(iii). In the circumstances, we feel that no exception could be taken to this part of the order of the Tribunal either. It follows that the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has to be affirmed in toto. In the result, the tax revision case is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). Petition dismissed.
-
1963 (3) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... over on the assumption that a good part of the turnover had escaped assessment to tax. This being a clear case of escape of the turnover, it cannot but attract sub-section (4) of section 14. If that were the correct legal position, it was beyond the competence of the revising authority to re-determine the turnover or to re-estimate it as that is a function assigned to the assessing authority by sub-section (4) of section 14. It follows that the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that is the subject-matter of this revision, was invalid and was rightly set aside by the majority of the members of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the result, the tax revision case is dismissed, but without costs. T.R.C. No. 9 of 1962. The principle embodied in T.R.C. No. 7 of 1962 applies to this case also. This tax revision case also is dismissed but without costs. Advocates fee in T.R.C. Nos. 7 and 9 of 1962 is fixed at Rs. 250 (two hundred and fifty). Petitions dismissed.
-
1963 (3) TMI 39 - MAHARASHTRA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... son of the use to which this cloth is put, it has been treated for the purpose of customs duty as a different item from the ordinary textile products or textile articles. The Supreme Court decision, therefore, on which reliance has been sought to be placed by Mr. Mehta, will not help him in the present case. The main argument of the applicants in the present case before the lower authorities was that although the expression textile fabrics of any kind in entry 79 is wide enough to include the article that is sold by the applicants, in view of the inclusive part of the said entry, the expression must be given a curtailed or restricted connotation. That argument as we have already pointed out cannot be accepted. The result, therefore, is that our answer to the question which has been referred to us in the present reference must be in the affirmative. We answer it accordingly. The applicants will pay the costs of the department in one set. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1963 (3) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Commissioner of Sales Tax who wants to enforce the provision it is open only to one who would be aggrieved by the enforcement of it. If the correct interpretation of a provision would render it unconstitutional the Court will have to strike it down and cannot give a forced interpre- tation with a view to save it. I would, therefore, hold that the Board did not sell goods to contractors as a dealer and was not liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of the sale. In the result my answer to the question is no . Copies of the judgment may be sent under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., as required under section 11(6) of the Sales Tax Act and the applicant may recover its costs of this reference, assessed at Rs. 100, from the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Counsel s fee may be assessed at Rs. 100. ASTHANA, J.-I agree and have nothing to add. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1963 (3) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as much required to make it in order as other requirements. The Judge (Appeals) would have been bound to admit it only if it had been in order as it was t, he could reject it under sub-rule (3) of rule 67. The defect in it was t curable because, as we explained earlier, it was impossible for the memorandum of appeal to go in company with satisfactory proof of payment and, therefore, purpose was to be served by the judge returning it to the assessee for correction and re-presentation. We, therefore, answer question . 1 in the negative. Question . 2 does t arise. We direct that copies of this judgment shall be sent to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax and the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., as required by section 11(6) of the Sales Tax Act under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar. We further direct that the Commis- sioner, Sales Tax, will get his costs of this reference from the assessee. Counsel s fee is assessed at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1963 (3) TMI 36 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ould say so. The authorities cant recover a tax retrospectively by recourse to the deeming provision which merely withdrew the exemption. I cant attribute to the Legislature an intention to take away the exemptions enjoyed by persons who were lawfully exempted from the tax under the Act. If the Legislature wanted to do so, it would have expressly said so. There is provi- sion in the Amending Act authorizing levy of sales tax retrospectively, and the tax which had t been imposed cant be deemed to have been imposed by recourse to section 3 read with section 1(2) of the Amending Act, as is sought to be done by the authorities in this case. In my view, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is sound and must prevail. The sales tax cant be levied for the period in dispute. For the reasons given above, this petition is allowed and the order of the Assessing Authority is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1963 (3) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the direction contained in the order, that is to say, if he fails to pay the tax and the penalty indicated in the notice. We are not satisfied that any notions of a final order can be brought into play, when the section conferring the right of appeal under section 31 is not conditioned in any such manner. The section gives a right of appeal against an order made under subsection (3) of section 42. It is beyond dispute that the present order is one which falls within that section. The fact that if the petitioner complies with the option, the goods may be released from the order of confiscation passed does not mean that there is not an order which is within the scope of section 42(3). Construing the terms of section 31, which gives the right of appeal, we are satisfied that the Tribunal reached the correct conclusion in the matter that an appeal does lie in the circumstances of the case. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1963 (3) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The assessee has been found to be a dealer and the goods that he sold have been found to be not exempt from sales tax. It is, therefore, liable to sales tax and the question where the sale took place, that is, where the property in the goods passed is irrelevant. Further, as we said earlier, we have not got the necessary facts to justify our saying that the sale did not take place within Uttar Pradesh. If the question were to be answered it can only be answered as follows The sale cannot be said not to have taken place within the State of Uttar Pradesh. We direct that copies of this judgment shall be sent under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the Court to the judge (Revisions) and the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., as required by section 11(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. We further direct that the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., will gets his costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 50. Counsel s fee is assessed at Rs. 50. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1963 (3) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the business in the subsequent years, that he falsely stated that the business carried on in 1950-51 was a new business and that his conduct was dishonest. These facts could sustain a finding that its turnover in 1949-50 was Rs. 2,00,000. Best judgment assessment has to be by inference and if there is some material to justify the inference it must be maintained. In this case there was sufficient material to justify the inference that the assessee s turnover for 1949-50 was at least Rs. 2,00,000. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative. We direct that the copies of this judgment shall be sent under the signature of the Registrar and with the seal of the Court to the Judge (Revisions) and the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., as required by section 11(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., will get costs of this reference from the assessee which we assess at Rs. 100. The counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 100. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1963 (3) TMI 32 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Assessing Authority subsequently took a different view of the law without any judicial pronouncement having come to his notice. Thus the second assessment was not in view of any definite information received by him but merely because he felt that the previous order was wrong, and this is beyond the scope of section 11-A. For the reasons given above, therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is without jurisdiction both on the ground that the Assessing Authority could not order a reassessment under section 11-A because there was no definite information which had come to his possession and also because under section 5(2)(a)(ii), as it stood at the relevant time, the goods sent to Delhi branch and actually sold there, must be treated as goods manufactured for sale and the second proviso was inapplicable. The rule is, therefore, made absolute and the impugned order is quashed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Order quashed.
-
1963 (3) TMI 31 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s Tax Officer. The relevant extracts from the books of accounts seized from the said two retailers were brought to the notice of the assessee-dealer. The assessee-dealer could not disprove the entries in the books of account of the said two retailers. When indeed extracts of the transactions, as disclosed from the books of accounts, were made known to the assessee-dealer, and thus opportunity given to the assesseedealer to disprove them, there was in my opinion sufficient compliance with principles of natural justice. 8.. In this view of the case, we are of opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was enough compliance of natural justice. The answer to the question referred by the Tribunal is accordingly in the affirmative in all these S.J.Cs. As the assessee-dealer has failed he is to pay the costs of the reference. Consolidated hearing fee Rs. 100. NARASIMHAM, C.J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1963 (3) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s Tax Act. This argument was also advanced before Veeraswami, J., in the two cases referred to above and did not win his approval. Nor are we able to see that the wording which has been employed in this particular definition is capable of the construction which the learned Government Pleader seeks to place upon it. It is true that even under the old Act where business was not defined, business was always held to mean a course of activity engaged in with a profit motive. What Mr. Ramanujam says is that there was no need to enact any definition of business in the new Act unless it was the intention of the Legislature to mean that the profit motive was to be excluded. We are unable to agree. We must interpret the words of the statute as they stand and not on the basis of any imagined purpose which the Legislature intended to enact, but which apparently they failed to enact. The petition is without substance and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1963 (3) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the facts of the present case. We may also point out that the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court took note of the fact that the notification which they had to construe had in fact been subsequently amended to include crushed and sieved tobacco within the scope of the exemption. Whether or not that circumstance controlled the conclusion which they reached is not necessary to be considered. We are accordingly satisfied that even accepting the affidavits of the sellers at their face value, the processes employed in dealing with the raw tobacco before purchase by the respondents did not convert the raw tobacco into any other form, thereby taking it out of the scope of section 5(viii) and bringing it under section 5(vii). The contentions of the respondents accordingly fail. In so far as this point is concerned, the order of the Tribunal will be set aside and that of the authority below restored. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
|
