Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1955 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 141 to 160 of 377 Records

• 1955 (9) TMI 42
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 11(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act regarding the obligation to pay over collected tax amounts to the government.
  2. Whether tax amounts collected unlawfully by registered dealers are payable to the government under section 11(2) of the Act.
  3. Application of the principle established in a Madras High Court decision regarding the obligation to pay over tax collections.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment by the High Court of Mysore involved two connected cases concerning the interpretation of section 11(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. In Civil Petition No. 111 of 1954, the petitioner, a company, collected a sum as a contingency deposit for the sale of certain goods. The Sales Tax Authorities initially insisted on tax collection for these goods, which the petitioner paid. However, upon later clarification that the goods were exempt from tax, the petitioner sought a refund. The Department argued that once collected, the amount had to be paid to them under section 11(2) of the Act. The Court examined the contention that only lawfully leviable tax amounts are payable to the government under this section.
  
  In Writ Petition No. 39 of 1954, a similar situation arose where the petitioner collected tax amounts that were later deemed exempt. The Department contended that since the petitioner collected the taxes, they were obligated to pay them over under section 11(2) of the Act. The Court considered the argument put forth by the State Government against the petitioner's claim, emphasizing the distinction between lawfully collected tax amounts and those collected erroneously.
  
  The Court referred to a decision of the Madras High Court, drawing parallels between the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The Madras High Court decision established that registered dealers are only required to pay over lawfully leviable tax amounts to the government, not amounts collected erroneously. The High Court of Mysore concurred with this interpretation, stating that illegal collections should not serve as a source of income for the State.
  
  Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in both cases, holding that they were not liable to pay the collected amounts to the government and were entitled to refunds. The Court allowed the petitions, directing the refund of the collected amounts in Civil Petition No. 111 of 1954 and granting a writ of certiorari in Writ Petition No. 39 of 1954. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting tax laws in a manner that upholds the legality and fairness of tax collections, ensuring that only lawfully leviable amounts are payable to the government.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 40
  

  Whether the petitioners imported tobacco from the State of Bombay in large quantities but stated that the tobacco, after its arrival in the petitioners' bidi factories, was cleaned, sieved and blended?

  Held that:- The respondents will be restrained from enforcing the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and its provisions against the petitioners and from imposing a tax in respect of the transactions in question and in particular from imposing a tax on the purchase price of goods purchased on the declarations under rule 26 being goods specified in the registration certificate as intended for use as raw material in the manufacture of goods for sale by actual delivery in Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of consumption in that State but utilised for any other purpose under the provisions of section 4(6) of the Act.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 39
  
  Issues:
  1. Assessment of sales tax on a non-resident foreigner under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
  2. Interpretation of the term "dealer" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
  3. Jurisdiction of the Madras State in taxing transactions involving non-residents.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment by the Supreme Court of India involved an appeal concerning the assessment of sales tax on a non-resident foreigner under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The appellant, the legal representative of the plaintiff, contested the assessment on the grounds that the plaintiff was a non-resident foreigner with no business presence in the Madras State. The plaintiff, engaged in trading coir yarn, objected to the tax assessment imposed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, which was upheld by subsequent authorities. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the assessment was unauthorized and illegal. The lower courts dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
  
  The primary issue addressed in the judgment was the interpretation of the term "dealer" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The plaintiff argued that since he was a non-resident foreigner without a business establishment in the Madras State, he should not be liable for sales tax. However, the courts found that the plaintiff qualified as a "dealer" under the Act as he conducted sales transactions within the Madras State, even though his place of residence and business were outside the state. The court emphasized that the definition of a "dealer" under the Act includes individuals engaging in selling goods within the state, irrespective of their residential status. The court highlighted that the presence of an agent in the state does not absolve the principal from tax liability, as per Explanation (2) of section 2.
  
  Furthermore, the judgment delved into the jurisdiction of the Madras State in taxing transactions involving non-residents. Despite the plaintiff's non-resident status and lack of a business establishment in the Madras State, the court upheld the tax assessment based on the plaintiff's sales activities within the state. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff, by engaging in selling goods within the Madras State, fell within the scope of a "dealer" as defined by the Act, thereby rendering him liable for sales tax. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the application of the term "dealer" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act concerning non-resident individuals engaging in sales transactions within the state, affirming their tax liability despite their non-resident status.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 38
  

  Whether that proviso to Article 286(2) also saves the transactions of sale or purchase covered by the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) from the ban imposed therein?

  Held that:- The whole theory, therefore, of "inside sales" falls to the ground and the only thing which we are left with is that these transactions were inter-State transactions in which as a direct result of such sales the goods were actually delivered for the purpose of consumption in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) deter- mined the State of Uttar Pradesh to be the State in which the sales took place and which alone was entitled to tax these transactions, the State of Madhya Pradesh becoming an "outside" State for the purpose.

  Apart from the ban imposed on the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto, these transactions were also in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and were hit by the ban of Article 286(2). The President's order no doubt lifted that ban but was not competent to lift the ban under Article 286(1)(a) and the Explanation thereto with the result that in spite of that order the State of Madhya Pradesh was not in a position to impose a tax on these transactions during the post-Constitution period. The assessment of these transactions to tax for the post-Constitu- tion period, therefore, is invalid and cannot be sustained. Allow the petition, set aside the said order dated the 14th July, 1954, and the matter will go back to the Assessment Officer for re-assessment of the petitioners in accordance with law.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 37
  

  Levying and realising a tax questioned - Held that:- The Act imposes tax on subjects divisible in their nature but does not exclude in express terms subjects exempted by the Constitution. In such a situation the Act need not be declared wholly ultra vires and void, for it is feasible to separate taxes levied on authorised subjects from those levied on exempted subjects and to exclude the latter in the assessment of the tax. In these circumstances it is difficult to say that the scheme of taxing inter-State sales forms such an integral part of the entire scheme of taxation on sales or purchases of goods as to be inextricably inter-woven with it. There is no reason to presume that had the Bihar Legislature known that the provisions of the Act might be held bad in so far as they imposed or authorised the imposition of a tax on inter-State trade or commerce even though Parliament had not by law pro- vided otherwise it would, nevertheless, not have passed the rest of the Act.

  The appeal is allowed and an order shall be issued directing that, until Parliament by law provides otherwise, the State of Bihar do forbear and abstain from imposing sales tax on out- of-State dealers in respect of sales or purchases that have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce even though the goods have been delivered as a direct result of such sales or purchases for consumption in Bihar. The State must pay the costs of the appellant in this Court and in the Court below.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 15
  
  Issues Involved
  1. Setting aside of the arbitration award.
  2. Extension of time for making the award.
  3. Jurisdiction of the Lavad Committee under the articles of association and bye-laws.
  4. Validity of arbitration agreement under section 2 of the Arbitration Act.
  5. Alleged irregularities in the arbitration proceedings.
  
  Detailed Analysis
  
  1. Setting Aside of the Arbitration Award
  The appellant had applied to the City Civil Court to set aside an arbitration award made against him, which was dismissed by the trial judge. The appellant argued that the Lavad Committee had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as he disputed the existence of the contract itself. The court held that the relevant articles of association did not confer jurisdiction on the Lavad Committee to deal with the preliminary dispute as to whether the contract had been entered into between the appellant and the respondent. The court stated, "A dispute as to the existence of the contract itself is outside the contract altogether and the decision of this dispute as an essential preliminary before dealing with the disputes arising out of or in course of the said contract."
  
  2. Extension of Time for Making the Award
  The respondent applied for an extension of time to make the award, which was granted by the trial judge. The appellant argued that the proceedings before the arbitrators were delayed and irregular. However, the court observed that under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, an order extending time is not appealable. The court noted, "The Legislature has clearly contemplated that the question as to whether time should be extended should be left entirely to the discretion of the trial Judge and the order that the trial Judge may pass in the exercise of his discretion should be regarded as final."
  
  3. Jurisdiction of the Lavad Committee
  The court examined whether the articles of association and bye-laws constituted an agreement in writing to refer the dispute to arbitration. The court held that the relevant articles did not confer jurisdiction on the Lavad Committee to deal with disputes as to the existence of the contract. The court stated, "It is very difficult to hold that a dispute as to the existence of the contract itself arises out of the contract or arises in course of the contract." The court further noted that the arbitration agreement must reside in the articles of association, and no bye-law can validly confer jurisdiction to entertain such disputes on the Lavad Committee.
  
  4. Validity of Arbitration Agreement under Section 2 of the Arbitration Act
  The court discussed whether the articles of association could constitute an arbitration agreement under section 2 of the Arbitration Act. The court noted the conflicting judicial opinions on this point. The court concluded that the articles of association could constitute a general contract containing an arbitration clause, which would govern all dealings entered into between members in respect of commodities falling within the purview of the association. The court stated, "We prefer to accept, with respect, the view taken by Mr. Justice BHAGWATI in Mohanlal's case (supra)."
  
  5. Alleged Irregularities in the Arbitration Proceedings
  The appellant argued that the arbitration proceedings were irregular due to the fluctuating composition of the Lavad Committee. The court noted that bye-law 88 of the chamber specifically provided that objections regarding the composition of the arbitration committee would not invalidate the award. The court held, "We must, therefore, hold that the infirmity in the award on which Mr. K.T. Desai relied cannot invalidate the award because bye-law 88 expressly precludes the appellant from raising such a contention."
  
  Conclusion
  The appeal was allowed, the order of the City Civil Court Judge was reversed, and the award made against the appellant was set aside with costs throughout. The court concluded that the dispute as to the existence of the contract itself was not covered by the arbitration agreement in the present case, rendering the award made by the arbitrators invalid.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 8
  
  Issues:
  - Suit maintainability in a civil court for matters involving an unregistered company under the Indian Companies Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a revision petition filed against the finding of the learned Munsiff on the issue of whether matters involving an unregistered company under the Indian Companies Act could be agitated in a civil court or only through an application for winding up. The dispute arose between members of a family association regarding the dissolution of various funds managed by them. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable due to the association being akin to an unregistered company under the Act. The learned Munsiff held that the suit was maintainable in the court and within its pecuniary jurisdiction.
  
  The petitioner-defendant challenged this finding, arguing that the association constituted more than twenty members, was unregistered, and thus the matters could not be addressed in a civil court. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, specifically sections 4(2) and 4(3), which regulate the formation of associations for gain. It was established that the association in question met the criteria of having more than twenty members, engaging in business activities, and aiming to acquire gain.
  
  The court rejected the contention that the association was not carrying on business for gain, highlighting the financial transactions and mutual benefits among members. Emphasizing that the term "gain" encompasses acquisition beyond mere pecuniary profits, the court concluded that the association's activities aligned with the Act's definition of a business for gain. Citing precedents from various High Courts, including cases from Allahabad, Calcutta, and the local High Court, the judgment reinforced the illegality of unregistered associations under the Act and the consequent bar on maintaining suits related to such entities.
  
  Ultimately, the court set aside the Munsiff's finding on the suit's maintainability in the civil court, allowing the revision petition and affirming that the matters involving the unregistered company-like association should not be addressed through a civil suit.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  1. Lack of jurisdiction in imposing a fine by the Collector of Customs.
  2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the procedure followed for imposing the fine.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Lack of jurisdiction in imposing a fine by the Collector of Customs
  The petitioner, an exporter of handloom goods, was fined Rs. 10,000 by the Collector of Customs for exporting power-loom goods, which were prohibited at the time. The fine was imposed without giving notice to the petitioner to show cause or conducting an inquiry. The Collector's order was challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. The appellate authority, the Central Board of Revenue, confirmed the Collector's order. However, the High Court held that the Collector's order was a nullity as it was passed without following the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that the lack of notice and opportunity to prove innocence rendered the order illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court overruled the objection to its jurisdiction and quashed the Collector's order.
  
  Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice in the procedure followed for imposing the fine
  The petitioner's case involved the confiscation of a bale of power-loom goods, bale No. 1202, which was mistakenly shipped despite being prohibited for export. The petitioner had attempted to pay the penalty for the confiscated bale but faced delays and lack of response from the Customs authorities. The Court noted the negligence of the Customs authorities in handling the petitioner's requests and highlighted the importance of timely responses in such matters. The Court emphasized that the Collector's order imposing the fine of Rs. 10,000 was invalid due to the lack of notice and opportunity for the petitioner to defend against the allegations of collusion and illegal export. The Court held that even if mens rea was not a requirement under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, the absence of notice deprived the petitioner of a fair chance to defend himself. Consequently, the Court quashed the Collector's order and awarded costs to the petitioner for the writ petition.

  ---

• 1955 (9) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against acquittal of the respondent under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  2. Interpretation of Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) regarding evasion of duty.
  3. Consideration of the act of removal of goods from a warehouse in relation to the offense of evasion of duty.
  4. Assessment of penalty imposed for improper removal of goods under Rule 144 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  5. Evaluation of the circumstances leading to the respondent's acquittal by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment involves an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case pertains to the evasion of duty by the respondent, a private-bonded warehouse licensee, as alleged by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The respondent was charged with evasion of duty amounting to Rs. 12,656/4/0. The prosecution presented evidence of a shortage of stock in the respondent's warehouse, leading to the question of whether the offense falls under Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944).
  
  The Stationary Sub-Magistrate acquitted the respondent, emphasizing that the evasion of payment of duty, not the act of removal, is the crux of the offense under Section 9(b). The judgment highlighted the provisions of Rule 144 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which govern the removal of goods from a warehouse. The rule stipulates penalties for improper removal, including a fine of up to Rs. 2,000. In this case, the respondent admitted inability to pay the duty and penalty, leading to the auction of seized stock to recover the outstanding amount.
  
  The judgment analyzed the distinction between the offense of evasion of duty under Section 9(b) and the penalty for improper removal under Rule 144. It noted that the penalty had been imposed and collected from the respondent, indicating compliance with the relevant provisions. Consequently, the High Court found no error in the Sub-Magistrate's decision to acquit the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal based on the specific legal framework governing duty evasion and penalties for improper removal of goods from a warehouse.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 53
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of Ext. D sale-deed
  2. Whether Ext. D was intended to take effect
  3. Limitation period for filing the suit
  
  Analysis:
  1. The case involved a second appeal arising from a suit for the declaration of the void and inoperative nature of a sale-deed (Ext. D) executed by the 1st plaintiff in favor of the 1st defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit, while the lower appellate court allowed it, leading to this second appeal.
  
  2. The central issue was whether the sale-deed (Ext. D) was a genuine sale and intended to take effect. The document purported to convey property for a consideration of Rs. 198, allegedly advanced by the 1st defendant's father to the 1st plaintiff on behalf of the Tarwad. However, discrepancies arose regarding the actual advance of funds and utilization. The court analyzed the evidence of the parties involved, including the denial of the alleged gift by the father and the lack of concrete details from the defendants. Ultimately, the court favored the lower appellate court's conclusion that Ext. D lacked consideration and was not intended to be effective.
  
  3. Another crucial aspect was the question of whether the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court incorrectly applied Article 78 of the Limitation Act, suggesting the suit was time-barred. However, the correct application was Article 91, which pertains to canceling or setting aside an instrument. The court clarified that Article 91 only applies to voidable documents, not void ones. Given the finding that Ext. D was sham and nominal, Article 91 did not apply, and the suit was not time-barred. The judgment dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 52
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether there was a concluded agreement for sale between the Commissioner of Partition and the appellants.
  2. Whether the Commissioner was entitled to break off negotiations and consider better offers received subsequently.
  3. Whether the sale proceedings were conducted with any irregularities.
  4. Whether the higher offer received later should influence the court's direction regarding the sale.
  5. Whether the absence of payment of earnest money affected the completion of the sale agreement.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Concluded Agreement for Sale:
  The primary question was whether the Commissioner of Partition had entered into a concluded agreement for sale with the appellants. The judgment clarified that a concluded contract depends on whether all material terms were agreed upon at the time of the transaction. The court found that the essential conditions of sale were stated at the meeting, but the appellants did not agree to these conditions. The appellants' subsequent actions, including proposing new terms in the draft agreement, indicated that there was no mutual assent on all material terms, thus no concluded contract existed. The court emphasized that the appellants themselves admitted that they did not accept the conditions of sale, which further confirmed the absence of a binding agreement.
  
  2. Right to Break Off Negotiations:
  The Commissioner was entitled to break off negotiations and consider better offers if the initial agreement was not concluded. The court noted that the Commissioner had the discretion to treat the offer as canceled if the draft agreement was not sent by a specified date. Since the appellants did not conform to the conditions of sale, the Commissioner was justified in considering a higher offer received from another party.
  
  3. Irregularities in Sale Proceedings:
  The respondents alleged several irregularities, such as the absence of advertisements and the presence of the appellants' solicitor at the meeting. However, the court found that these objections were not valid. The plaintiff and Anil Krishna Ghosh had participated in the meeting and accepted the offers without raising any objections at that time. The court also noted that the sale by private treaty did not necessarily require advertisements and that the appellants' solicitor was present at the request of the other parties. Therefore, the court concluded that the alleged irregularities did not invalidate the proceedings.
  
  4. Higher Offer Received Later:
  The court held that the higher offer received later could influence the court's direction regarding the sale. The learned trial judge had directed the Commissioner to hold a fresh sale between the appellants and the new offerer, subject to an undertaking by the latter to bid at least Rs. 40,000. The court agreed with this direction, considering that there was no concluded agreement with the appellants and that the owners should benefit from the higher offer.
  
  5. Payment of Earnest Money:
  The trial judge had also held that the agreement for sale was not concluded because the earnest money had not been paid as required by Rule 10 of Chapter XXVII of the Rules of the Original Side. The court clarified that the payment of earnest money was a term of the sale itself rather than a condition of the agreement. The court noted that in the case of a sale by private treaty, the earnest money could be deposited at the time of the execution of the agreement, which had not occurred in this case. Therefore, the absence of payment of earnest money did not affect the conclusion that there was no binding agreement.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the order of the learned trial judge was affirmed. The court directed the Commissioner to disregard the appellants' offer and negotiate with the party willing to pay a better price, with liberty to the appellants to compete if they desired.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 51
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Obligation of a usufructuary mortgagee to deliver actual possession upon redemption.
  2. Estoppel due to eviction proceedings initiated by the appellant.
  3. Election of remedies by the appellant.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Obligation of a Usufructuary Mortgagee to Deliver Actual Possession Upon Redemption
  The primary issue revolves around whether a usufructuary mortgagee, who has let a tenant into possession after the execution of the mortgage, is obligated to put the mortgagor in actual possession of the property on redemption. The court held that the mortgagor is entitled to actual possession of the property upon redemption, not merely a direction by the mortgagee to the tenant to attorn to the mortgagor. The court stated, "the mortgagor is entitled to insist that khas possession should be delivered to him and not merely such possession as is involved by a mere direction by the mortgagee to his tenant to attorn to the mortgagor."
  
  2. Estoppel Due to Eviction Proceedings Initiated by the Appellant
  The second issue concerns whether the appellant is estopped from claiming mesne profits from the first defendant due to the eviction proceedings initiated against the third defendant. The court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the appellant was estopped from proceeding against the first defendant. The court reasoned that "if the appellant had indicated that he did not propose to recognise the third defendant as his tenant but would proceed only against the first defendant, the latter might certainly have taken steps to recover rents as also possession from his tenant." The court found that the appellant's actions in initiating eviction proceedings against the third defendant constituted an election to treat the tenant in possession as his tenant, thereby precluding any claim against the first defendant for mesne profits.
  
  3. Election of Remedies by the Appellant
  The third issue involves the appellant's election of remedies. The court held that the appellant's initiation of proceedings before the Rent Controller against the third defendant constituted an election to treat the tenant in possession as his tenant. The court cited Section 111(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, stating that "a lease of immovable property determines where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on the happening of any event, by the happening of such an event." The court concluded that the appellant's actions amounted to an unequivocal act showing his choice, which could not be retracted. The court emphasized that "where a man is entitled to one of two inconsistent rights and he has with full knowledge done an unequivocal act indicating his choice of the one, he cannot afterwards pursue the other."
  
  Conclusion
  The court dismissed both the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition. The court found that the appellant was estopped from claiming mesne profits due to his election to treat the third defendant as his tenant and that the first defendant had fulfilled his obligation by issuing notices to the tenant and the mortgagors. The court reiterated that once an election of inconsistent rights is made, it cannot be retracted, thereby precluding the appellant from seeking mesne profits from the first defendant.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 50
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the commission income should be assessed in the year it becomes due or in the year it is actually drawn.
  2. Applicability of Section 7 of the Income-tax Act.
  3. Applicability of Section 12 and Section 34 of the Income-tax Act.
  4. The method of accounting (mercantile vs. cash basis) relevant for the assessment.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the commission income should be assessed in the year it becomes due or in the year it is actually drawn:
  The primary issue was whether the commission income of the assessee should be assessed in the year it becomes due or in the year it is actually drawn. The court noted that the Income-tax Officer assessed the commission as income from other sources under Section 12 of the Act, considering the years in which the amounts were actually withdrawn. The assessee contended that the commission should be assessed in the years when it accrued due, in line with the mercantile system of accounting. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the commission amounts had not been made available to the assessee in the years they were credited but only when actually received.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 7 of the Income-tax Act:
  The court focused on Section 7 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the taxation of salaries, including commissions. The section specifies that tax is payable on any salary or commission "which are due to him from, whether paid or not, or are paid by or on behalf of" the employer. The court interpreted that if any payment becomes due, it must be assessed in the year it becomes due, irrespective of actual payment. The court rejected the contention that Section 7 provided an option to either the Income-tax Officer or the assessee to choose the year of assessment.
  
  3. Applicability of Section 12 and Section 34 of the Income-tax Act:
  Both parties agreed that Section 12, which deals with income from other sources, was incorrectly applied by the Income-tax Officer. The court shared the surprise that Section 34, which deals with income escaping assessment, was overlooked. The court observed that if the Income-tax Officer had proceeded under Section 34, the contentious proceedings might have been avoided.
  
  4. The method of accounting (mercantile vs. cash basis) relevant for the assessment:
  The assessee argued that he should be treated as following the mercantile system of accounting, similar to his employer. However, the court noted that the assessee did not maintain any accounts and did not submit returns for the years when the income accrued. The Appellate Tribunal found it incredible that large sums credited to the assessee were not withdrawn, suggesting that the amounts were not available to him in those years.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that for the assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45, the commission amounts received in the relevant accounting years had become due earlier and were not liable to be included in those assessment years. For the assessment year 1948-49, the question did not arise as the commission was earned and assessed in the same year. For the assessment year 1949-50, the amount of Rs. 1,650 was only partially referable to commission earned in previous years, and the exact part was undetermined.
  
  Judgment:
  - Assessment Years 1943-44 and 1944-45: The commission income should not be assessed in these years.
  - Assessment Year 1948-49: The question does not arise.
  - Assessment Year 1949-50: The commission income should not be assessed for the part coming from previous years.
  
  Lahiri, J. concurred with the judgment.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 49
  
  The High Court of Calcutta ruled that the Income-tax Officer was entitled to go behind the original cost accepted in previous assessments. The assessees requested to withdraw the reference, but the Court decided to proceed with the decision already affirmed by the Supreme Court. The answer to the question was affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax was awarded costs.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 48
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Burden of Proof regarding the Nominal Nature of Mortgage Deed
  2. Consideration for Mortgage Deed
  3. Legal Necessity and Antecedent Debt in Hindu Law
  4. Sufficiency of Recitals as Evidence
  5. Onus of Proof in Cases of Alienation by Hindu Father
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Burden of Proof regarding the Nominal Nature of Mortgage Deed:
  The Plaintiff, the only son of the 1st Defendant, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share, challenging the alienation of joint family properties by the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff contended that the mortgage deed dated 9-12-1927 and the sale deed dated 19-6-1933 were nominal and executed to benefit the mother of Defendants 2 and 3. The District Munsif held that the onus of proving the nominal nature of the alienations lay upon the Plaintiff. However, on appeal, the District Judge reversed this finding, stating that the Plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proof.
  
  2. Consideration for Mortgage Deed:
  The Plaintiff argued that the consideration for the mortgage deed was not made out, and the transactions were make-believe. The District Munsif accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and found the mortgage and sale to be nominal. However, the District Judge did not address the material questions regarding the sufficiency of means of Gangulamma (the mortgagee), the relationship between Veeramma and the 1st Defendant, and the timing of the mortgage deed. The High Court noted the need for a fresh finding on these questions and called for an authoritative ruling on the burden of proof regarding the consideration for the mortgage deed.
  
  3. Legal Necessity and Antecedent Debt in Hindu Law:
  The High Court discussed the legal principles governing the burden of proof in cases where a Hindu father's alienation is challenged by his son. The Court referred to the Privy Council decision in Bhagawan Singh v. Bishambhar Nuth, which held that the onus of proving consideration for a mortgage lies on the Defendants. The Court also considered the views of Abdur Rahman, J., and Somayya, J., who held that the mortgagee must establish that the mortgage was executed for legal necessity or payment of an antecedent debt.
  
  4. Sufficiency of Recitals as Evidence:
  The High Court examined the sufficiency of recitals in a mortgage deed as evidence of consideration. It was noted that a recital acknowledging the receipt of consideration is admissible in evidence, but its weight depends on the circumstances of each case. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof on the pleadings never shifts, while the burden of adducing evidence shifts during the trial. The Court concluded that there is no special rule of onus in such cases and that the recitals in a document can be prima facie proof of the receipt of consideration.
  
  5. Onus of Proof in Cases of Alienation by Hindu Father:
  The High Court clarified that the onus of proving the nominal nature of a mortgage or the lack of consideration lies on the party challenging the transaction. The Court referred to the decision in Chidainbaramma v. Hussainamma, which held that the onus of proving that a sale was nominal or without consideration lies upon the Plaintiff, while the onus of proving that it was binding on the reversion lies on the alienee. The Court also discussed the distinction between the burden of proof on the pleadings and the burden of adducing evidence.
  
  Judgment of the Bench:
  The Bench affirmed the decision of the learned District Judge, holding that the burden lay upon the Plaintiff to establish that the recitals in the mortgage-bond executed six years before the actual alienation and twenty years before the date it was attacked were false. The Bench concluded that the Plaintiff had not discharged this burden, especially in the absence of their father from the witness-box. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 47
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 79,275, representing losses incurred outside Travancore, from the income, profits, and gains made in Travancore.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Entitlement to Deduct Losses Incurred Outside Travancore
  The primary issue in this case is whether the assessee, Indo-Mercantile Bank Limited, can deduct the losses of Rs. 79,275 incurred outside the Travancore State from the profits made within Travancore for the assessment year 1124 M.E.
  
  Background and Arguments:
  - The Income-tax Officer, Alleppey, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 90,947, representing profits from branches in Travancore only, and refused to deduct Rs. 79,275, which were losses from branches outside Travancore.
  - The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, relying on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Mishrimal Gulabchand [1950] 18 I.T.R. 75.
  - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the business of banking carried on by the assessee at all branches, both within and outside Travancore, should be considered as one and indivisible. Therefore, the losses incurred outside Travancore should be deducted from the profits made within Travancore.
  
  Legal Provisions and Analysis:
  - Section 18(2)(c) of the Travancore Income-tax Act: This section exempts income, profits, or gains accruing or arising within British India or any Indian State from being taxed in Travancore unless received or brought into Travancore.
  - Section 32(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act: This section allows for the set-off of losses under one head of income against profits under another head. The proviso to this section prohibits setting off losses incurred in British India or any Indian State against profits accruing in Travancore.
  
  Court's Reasoning:
  - The court observed that Section 32(1) and its proviso apply only when there are different heads of income. In this case, there is only one head of income (business), so the proviso does not apply.
  - The court referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Murlidhar Mathurawalla Mahajan Association [1948] 16 I.T.R. 146, which held that different businesses constitute one head under Section 10, and losses from one business can be set off against profits from another within the same head.
  - The court also examined Section 18(2)(c) and concluded that it does not preclude the deduction of losses incurred outside Travancore when computing the income of the assessee within Travancore.
  
  Precedents and Comparative Analysis:
  - The court noted that the Allahabad High Court's view in Mishrimal Gulabchand was not accepted by other High Courts, including Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Punjab, and Hyderabad.
  - The Madras High Court in V. Ramaswamy Ayyangar and Another v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1950] 18 I.T.R. 150 held that the computation of business income should consider all businesses, whether carried on within or outside British India.
  - The Nagpur High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh v. C.P. Syndicate [1952] 22 I.T.R. 493 and Mohanlal Hiralal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. & Berar [1952] 22 I.T.R. 448 rejected the Allahabad High Court's view and held that losses incurred outside British India should be considered in computing total income.
  - The Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab v. Hira Mall Narain Dass [1953] 24 I.T.R. 199 and Hyderabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad v. Baliram Santhoba [1954] 25 I.T.R. 309 also supported the view that losses incurred outside the taxable territory should be deducted from profits made within it.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the proviso to Section 32(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act does not apply to the case, and Section 18(2)(c) does not affect the question. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduct the losses incurred outside Travancore from the profits made within Travancore. The reference was answered accordingly, and the assessee was awarded costs.
  
  Reference Answered Accordingly:
  The court held that the sum of Rs. 79,275 representing losses incurred by the assessee outside Travancore should be deducted from the profits made within Travancore. The assessee was awarded costs, including an advocate's fee of Rs. 100, from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, and Coorg.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 46
  
  Issues:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Session to try the accused for offenses under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
  
  Analysis:
  The Additional Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court, questioning the committal of three accused to the Court of Session for Greater Bombay for trial on two offenses. The first offense involved the accused using a forged document before a Sales Tax Officer, leading to charges under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second offense related to cheating the Sales Tax Officer by presenting false declarations, resulting in charges under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial revealed a jurisdictional issue under section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring a complaint from the concerned officer for offenses involving documents produced in court proceedings.
  
  The Sales Tax Officer's role was pivotal in the case, as the accused's actions directly impacted the assessment of sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer, acting under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, had powers akin to a court, including summoning individuals, examining them under oath, and compelling document production. The Full Bench judgment established that officers like Income-tax Collectors are considered Revenue Courts, and Sales Tax Officers, empowered to decide revenue-related matters exclusively, fall under this category. Consequently, the Sales Tax Officer's status as a Revenue Court implied that offenses committed before him required a written complaint for the court to take cognizance, as per section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  
  While the accused were properly committed for the offense under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the jurisdictional flaw existed concerning the offenses under section 471 read with section 467. As section 420 was not subject to the restrictions of section 195, the committal for this charge was deemed valid. However, to rectify the jurisdictional error, the High Court directed the quashing of proceedings related to the offense under section 471 read with section 467 and ordered a fresh trial before a new jury for the offense under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This decision aimed to ensure a fair trial and adherence to legal procedures, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional requirements in criminal proceedings.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 45
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of the provision in the Finance Act of 1951 regarding the higher exemption limit for Hindu undivided families based on lineage and descent.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a reference by the Appellate Tribunal under the Income-tax Act regarding the entitlement of an assessee to the higher exemption limit under the Finance Act of 1951. The dispute arose as the family in question consisted of two minor sons, their mother, and grandmother. The issue was whether the two minor sons could be considered lineally descended from their mother, affecting their eligibility for the higher exemption limit.
  
  The Tribunal had referred the question to the High Court for determination, specifically focusing on whether a son or grandson could be considered a lineal descendant of his mother or grandmother within the context of the relevant provision. The provision required that members entitled to claim partition should not be lineally descended from any other living member of the family to qualify for the higher exemption limit.
  
  The High Court analyzed various legal precedents and interpretations to determine the meaning of "lineal descendant." It was established that widows of male members and unmarried daughters are considered members of a Hindu undivided family. The court emphasized the distinction between "descendant" and "lineal descendant," highlighting the requirement of a right line without deviation for lineal descent.
  
  The court concluded that a son or grandson could be considered a lineal descendant of his mother or grandmother, respectively, within the meaning of the provision. The interpretation focused on the concept of lineal consanguinity and clarified that descent in a right line, regardless of the ability of Hindu females to form a line of succession, determined lineal descent.
  
  The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of legal definitions and principles, ultimately providing a clear answer to the question referred by the Division Bench. The judgment clarified the interpretation of lineage and descent within the context of the Finance Act of 1951, ensuring consistency and clarity in determining eligibility for the higher exemption limit for Hindu undivided families.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 44
  
  Issues:
  Validity of contract under Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal raised a question regarding the legality of a contract dated 19-3-1948, under the Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, Act 8 of 1925. The defendant contended that the contract was void under the Act, leading to the dismissal of the suit by the learned Judge. The contract involved the defendant undertaking to sell 1000 ordinary shares of a bank for the plaintiff at a specified price within 12 months from a particular event. The plaintiff filed suit for damages when the defendant failed to sell the shares within the stipulated time.
  
  The critical issue revolved around whether the contract fell under the definition of a ready delivery contract as per the Bombay Securities Contracts Control Act, 1925. The Act defines a ready delivery contract as one where no time is specified for performance, and it is to be executed immediately or within a reasonable time. The plaintiff argued that the contract in question was a ready delivery contract, while the defendant contended otherwise, claiming that the contract did not meet the Act's definition, rendering it void under Section 6 of the Act.
  
  The Court analyzed the contract's terms and the nature of the obligations involved. It was observed that the contract did not impose a present obligation on the defendant to purchase or sell shares at the contract's inception. Instead, the obligation was contingent upon a future event, which determined the existence of a contract for purchase or sale. The Court emphasized the distinction between contracts with present obligations and those where obligations arise based on conditions or contingencies.
  
  The Court further delved into the concept of contingent contracts, highlighting the potentiality of obligations based on future events. It was established that at the time of contract formation, there was no complete obligation for the defendant to purchase the shares, as it was dependent on a future contingency. The Court rejected arguments suggesting multiple promises or alternative obligations within the contract, emphasizing the singular nature of the obligation contingent upon a specific event.
  
  In conclusion, the Court held that the contract did not constitute a contract for the purchase or sale of shares at the time of its formation. The contract only materialized at the end of 12 months, with performance required immediately or within a reasonable time. As such, the contract was deemed valid and enforceable, not falling within the purview of the Bombay Act. The appeal was allowed, the previous decree was set aside, and the suit was remanded for trial on other issues, with costs awarded to the appellant.

  ---

• 1955 (8) TMI 43
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether a partnership created by verbal agreement can be registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act if the agreement is subsequently embodied in an instrument.
  2. Interpretation of section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act concerning the requirement of an instrument of partnership.
  3. The relevance of the timing of the execution of the partnership instrument concerning the accounting year.
  4. The implications of the rules and prescribed forms related to section 26A.
  5. The impact of previous judicial decisions on the interpretation of section 26A.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Registration of Partnership Created by Verbal Agreement:
  
  The court examined whether a partnership formed by verbal agreement and subsequently documented in an instrument can be registered under section 26A. The assessee argued that a formal deed embodying the verbal agreement should suffice for registration. The court, however, emphasized that section 26A necessitates an instrument of partnership that creates the firm, not merely records a pre-existing verbal agreement.
  
  2. Interpretation of Section 26A:
  
  The court scrutinized the language of section 26A, particularly the phrase "constituted under an instrument of partnership." The court noted that the preposition "under" is inappropriate if it implies that the instrument merely records a pre-existing agreement. The court concluded that the term "constituted" in this context means "created," implying that the partnership must originate from the instrument itself.
  
  3. Timing of Execution of Partnership Instrument:
  
  The court emphasized that for a partnership to be registered under section 26A, the instrument of partnership must be executed at or before the commencement of the relevant accounting year. This ensures that the instrument governs the distribution of profits for that year. The court rejected the notion that an instrument executed after the accounting year could retroactively affect the distribution of profits.
  
  4. Rules and Prescribed Forms Related to Section 26A:
  
  The court analyzed the rules and prescribed forms under section 26A. Rule 2(a) and the form of application were examined, highlighting that the instrument of partnership must specify the individual shares of the partners. The court found inconsistencies in the language of the rules and forms but ultimately held that the instrument must create the partnership and govern profit distribution during the relevant accounting period.
  
  5. Impact of Previous Judicial Decisions:
  
  The court referred to several previous decisions, including cases from the East Punjab High Court, which held that an instrument executed after the accounting year could not be the basis for registration. The court agreed with these decisions, emphasizing that a partnership created by a verbal agreement and later documented cannot claim registration for periods before the instrument's execution.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court concluded that section 26A requires an instrument of partnership that creates the firm and governs the distribution of profits during the relevant accounting year. An instrument executed after the accounting year cannot retroactively affect profit distribution or partnership creation. The answer to the referred question was in the negative, indicating that the assessee firm was not entitled to registration under section 26A based on an instrument executed after the relevant accounting year. The court made no order for costs.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 19