Himachal Pradesh Court March 1979 Judgments

Sawan Singh and ors. Vs. Radha Kishan and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1980HP8

D.B. Lal, J.1. In these three revisions: C. R. No. 2 of 1976. C. R. No. 40 of 1976 and C. R. No. 33 of 1974, since a common question of law arises for our consideration, we have chosen to decide them by giving a common judgment.2. In C, R. No. 2 of 1976, the original claim of the plaintiff-respondent was of Rs. 20,360/- and subsequently by way of amendment the plaintiff sought for theenhanced claim of Rs. 35,800/-. Accordingly after allowing the amendment, under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Civil P. C. the court asked for additional written statement. When the said additional written statement was filed, it was alleged that certain new grounds of claim were pleaded and certain allegations of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings were also made.The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendant, without seeking amendment of the written statement, could not take up such new pleas which could even be inconsistent with the pleas already taken in the previous written statement. Followi...

Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1979]118ITR300(HP)

D.B. Lal, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, who are Messrs. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., Solan, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred to us the following question of law for opinion :' Whether on a true interpretation of Rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer in excluding Rs. 13,685 only instead of Rs. 34,212 and Rs. 11,576 instead of Rs. 29,441 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, from the total income for arriving at the chargeable profits under the said Act '2. The facts giving rise to this reference may now be stated. Messrs. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. which is a public limited company carries on the business of manufacture and sale of beer, Indian made foreign liquors, malt, breakfast food and soft drinks, etc. The assessee-company besides doing their ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirpa Ram Kailashchand, Forest Contract ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1979]118ITR297(HP)

T.U. Mehta, C.J. 1. In this reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, has referred the following question to this High Court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the orders of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax cancelling the registration of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1967-68 and continuation of registration for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?' 2. The question arises in the background of the following facts : The respondent-firm was said to have been constituted on April 1,1966, for working as forest contractors and timber merchants pursuant toa partnership deed which was dated July 26, 1966. An application forregistration of this partnership was filed before the concerned ITO and itis said to have been presented on June 16, 1966. By his order dated June 9,1969, the ITO granted registration for the assessment year 1967-68 andthis registrati...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1980]122ITR203(HP)

T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has referred the following two questions for our opinion with regard to the assessment of the respondent-company's income for the assessment year 1963-64, These questions are as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following assets have been correctly included by the Tribunal in the assets of the Central Unit for the purposes of computing the average capital employed in the undertaking under Sections 84 and 101 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: (a) Capital works-in-progress Rs. 13,77,704(b) Land acquired during the years Rs. 84,902(c) Stores in transit Rs. 1,03,045. (2) Whether, on the, facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction by way of development rebate to the extent of Rs. 7,731 in respect of a telephone exchange installed in the factory area, under the provisions of...

Raja Rana Yogendra Chandra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1979]117ITR473(HP)

D.B. Lal, J.1. The Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a)?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference may now be stated. For the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee was issued a notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, calling for the return of income which was served upon the assessee on May 28, 1959. The return was due to be filed on orbefore July 2, 1959. However, the same was filed by the assessee on February 16, 1963, and thus a delay of 44 complete months was committed. The ITO completed the assessment on February 12, 1964, and while making the order wrote the following language :'Assessed. Issue requisite demand along with penalty notice in respect of the belated return.'3. Thereafter t...

Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)

Court: Himachal Pradesh

T.U. Metha, C.J.1. The petitioner-assessee is a publiq limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of beer, Indian madeforeign liquors, malt, breakfast food articles and soft drinks, etc. During the accounting year 1966-67, relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee-company paid a sum of Rs. 30,000 to the Registrar of Companies, Jullundur, as a fee for the increase of its authorized capital from rupees one crore to rupees five crores. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee-company claimed the allowance of this Rs. 30,000 as revenue expenditure incurred by it in the course of carrying on its business, under Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. This claim of deduction was disallowed by the ITO, the AAC and then finally by the Tribunal.2. During the same accounting year, the assessee-company paid an amount of Rs. 5,000 as tax under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962, in respect of the land and buil...

The State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Balak Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1979CriLJ1500

C.R. Thakur, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the dismissal order of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and consequent acquittal of the respondent.2. The Food Inspector, Shri K. L, Ghai, had purchased a sample of wheat from the shop of the respondent on 13th Nov. 1969 for the purpose of analysis, vide receipt Ex. PB and on being sent to the Public Analyst for analysis it was found, vide report Ex. PD, that the sample was infested with insects to the extent of 25.5%.3. On receipt of this report the Food Inspector lodged a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Jogindernagar under the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.4. The sale was proved by the statement of Shri K. L. Ghai (PW-1) and Tej Singh (PW-2). Shri Mast Ram was also produced as PW-3, but he did not support the prosecution story in its entirety and the complainant prayed that he be declared hostile and permission be accorded for his cross-exam...

Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1979]117ITR501(HP)

T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. In this reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in upholding the disallowance of Bhumi Bhawan Kar amounting to Rs. 13,338 which is a tax imposed by the U.P. Government under the Uttar Pradesh (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962, in respect of land or buildings of the company used in the ordinary course of business for carrying on manufacturing process or for purposes incidental thereto ?'2. The facts which gave rise to this reference are that during the financial year 1964-65 relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the Lucknow Branch of the assessee, which is a public limited company, paid Rs. 13,338 on account of Bhumi Bhawan Kar which is a tax imposed by the U. P. Government under Uttar Pradesh (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962, in respect of the land and buildings used for...

Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1979]118ITR101(HP)

T.U. Mehta, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference which arises out of the assessment, of the respondent's income for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The simple question which is involved is whether the expenditure of Rs. 37,005 incurred for the assessment year 1968-69 and of Rs. 29,036 for the assessment year 1969-70 for advertisement by placing neon-signs would be deductible or not. 2. Assessee is a public limited company and carries on business of manufacture and sale of beer, Indian made foreign liquor, malt, food articles and soft drinks, and has its business branches in various parts of the country. For the furtherance of its business, the assessee advertises some of its goods by installing neon-signs. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee had claimed the deduction of the advertisement expenditure amounting to Rs. 37,005 and for the assessment year 1969-70, it has claimed a deduction of similar nature for the amount of Rs. 29,036. Thes...