Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1963 1963 (3) 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 61 to 68 of 68 Records

• 1963 (3) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... spect of goods exigible to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. But in this case, as the transactions partake of an inter-State character, they are subject to tax only under the Central Act. If that were so, the State has no power acting under section 9(1) to give exemption to goods liable to be taxed under the Central Act. We are not concerned with the power conferred upon the State Government under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to give exemption even in respect of goods subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 also. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to disagree with the majority view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the result, this tax revision case is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (T.R.C. Nos. 13 and 14 of 1962). The principle laid down in T.R.C. No. 12 of 1962 applies to these tax revision cases also. These cases are also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.

  ---

• 1963 (3) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d that section 2 of the Amending Act shall be deemed to have come into fore on 1st October, 1957. It is, therefore, clear that the authority, the Deputy Commissioner, must be deemed to have had jurisdiction when he passed the order. This is the principle that has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Venkatachalam, Income-tax Officer v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 875 34 I.T.R. 143. Following this decision, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow this revision case. Several points were raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. These were not considered by the Tribunal in the view it took about the lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal will have to consider these grounds now that we have held that the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction. The Tribunal will, therefore, take back Appeal No. 730 of 1961 on its file and deal with the appeal on the merits. There will be no order as to costs in this tax revision case.

  ---

• 1963 (3) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Reassessment under section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 challenged - Held that:- Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1963 (3) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Balance sheet – Default in filing copies of and Ascertainment of directors retiring by rotation and filling up vacancies

  ---

• 1963 (3) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
  

  Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... , when he died. These are the main charges levelled by the petitioner. On a consideration of the evidence, I find that none of them have been substantiated. It may also be observed that these charges are of a frivolous nature and it is impossible for me to hold that the petitioner has, in filing this petition, been motivated solely by the interests of the company and its shareholders. It is impossible to resist the impression that the so-called charges has been levelled by the petitioner out of interested motives and they have nothing to do with the so-called mismanagement. Mr. Suryanarayana has submitted that even if this court comes to the conclusion that the winding up of the company is not the proper course to be adopted, this court may direct an investigation into the affairs of the company. I find that there is absolutely no material on the record which would justify this course. Having regard to the conclusions reached by me, this petition must be dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1963 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether " agricultural income-tax " mentioned in condition (b) in Part I of the Schedule must be read in terms of the definition in section 2(2) and hence as including super-tax?

  Whether the Explanation to rule 17 is controlled by the rule itself or is to be interpreted and applied independently of the rule?

  Whether the hospitals which were subject to the general inspection by the civil surgeon can be treated as hospitals in receipt of a grant from the Government within the meaning of the notification issued under rule17 ?

  Whether the scholarships paid to students through an institution recognised by the State Government or a local authority were donations within the meaning of rule 117 ?

  Whether the scholarships paid to students directly would amount to donations to an institution or to a fund within the scope of rule 17 ?

  Held that:- The first question must be answered by saying that condition (b) only restricts the amount of income-tax leviable under the Act and has nothing to do with the amount of super-tax that can be levied. This is the way in which the question was answered by the High Court and, in our opinion, rightly.

  The answer to the question is that in spite of the Explanation no exemption can be granted under rule 17 unless the institution or fund is one for charitable purpose and has further been approved by the State Government for the purpose of the rule, that is, for the purpose of earning exemption under it.

  the dispensaries in the district were under the control of the Assistant Surgeon who was posted at the Memorial Hospital, Balrampur. It may be that this Assistant Surgeon was a Government employee but it does not appear what service he was rendering in the hospitals. In any case, this ground has been nowhere relied upon by the appellant as constituting a grant by the State Government within the meaning of the notification under rule 17. We are, therefore, unable to go into this question.

  The first part of question must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative as the High Court has done. For the same reason the second part of the question has also to be answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1963 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether a suit would lie in a civil court claiming refund of the terminal tax collected by a municipality under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act III of 1911)?

  Held that:- In the present case the mistake, if any, committed in imposing the terminal tax can only be corrected in the manner prescribed by the Act. The appellants have misconceived their remedy in filing the suit in the civil court. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is correct.

  In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1963 (3) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Association Of Individuals - partitioned Estate - there was no common enterprise among the assessees and no joint endeavor to earn the income, therefore, assessees were liable as tenants-in-common and not as an Association of Individuals

  ---

1234