Court : Privy Council
Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 6th October 1944, upon a reference made to that Court under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922, raising two questions relating to the computation of the profits and gains of the Bombay branch of the respondent company (hereinafter called "the assessees"). [2] The assessees are a company incorporated in the Straits Settlement having their head office at Singapore and carrying on life insurance business in British India through their branch office at Bombay. It is therefore a company not resident in British India. The year of assessment is the year 1939-1940, and the previous year, that is the year of charge, is the calendar year 1938. The amendments to the Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, which came into force on 1st April 1939, apply to the year of assessment. The Act of 1922 as so amended by the Act of 1933 will hereinafter be referred to as "...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1988)67CTR(AP)6; [1988]171ITR232(AP)
Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J. 1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee relates to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1971-72 (both the years inclusive). Two questions are referred by the Tribunal for the consideration of this court and they are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investment in securities made by the assessee in pursuance of section 24 of the Banking Regulation Act being a statutory obligation can be treated as a transaction in the course of carrying on of trade 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is precluded from agitating the claims relating to gratuity, pension fund and staff welfare expenses for all the years and the difference arising out of the devaluation of the rupee to the extent of Rs. 11,04,484 for the assessment year 1967-68 and Rs. 57,530 for the assessment year 1968-69 in the reassessment proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC660
ORDERD. Raju, J. 1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996 (Presidential Ordinance No. 2 of 1996), hereinafter referred to as the impugned ordinance and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the impugned pension scheme. Subsequently, the Parliament has enacted the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment Act, 1996, Central Act, 25 of 1996 hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act and President's assent was also accorded to the same on August 16, 1996. Orders have been passed by this Court to suitably amend the references in the nature of relief sought so as to substitute the name of the Act in places where the name of the impugned Ordinance, without driving the various petitioners to the necessity of filing formally individual petitions seeking for such amendment and thereupon the challenge st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR401
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore on a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the question whether the appellant, the Bharat Insurance Company, was liable to be assessed under that Act to income-tax in respect of the profits allotted to participating policy-holders who were entitled under their contract to ninety per cent. of the profits made in the participating branch of the business.2. The Bharat Insurance Company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in 1882, for the purpose of making and effecting assurances on lives and carrying on other insurance business.3. Under the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Indian Life Assurance Act, 1912, the company's life assurance business has to be kept entirely separate from its other businesses, if any, and under Section 8(1) it is obliged to have a quinquennial valuation made by an actuary and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)223CTR(SC)425; [2009]314ITR62(SC); JT2009(6)SC637; 2009(7)SCALE456; [2009]180TAXMAN422(SC); 2009AIRSCW4902
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.FACTS IN THE LEAD MATTERCivil Appeal Nos. ... of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14178-14182 14178-14182 of 2007 - Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.3. In these civil appeals filed by the assessee we are concerned with the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994- 95. For the sake of convenience we hereby refer to the facts concerning assessment year 1991-92.4. Appellant-company sells Valve Actuators. Bulk of the sales is to BHEL. At the time of sale appellant (assessee) provides a Standard Warranty whereby in the event of any Beacon Rotork Actuator or part thereof becoming defective within 12 months from the date of commissioning or 18 months from the date of despatch whichever is earlier, the company undertakes to rectify or replace the defective part free of charge. This warranty is given under certain conditions stipulated in the warranty clause. For the assessment year 1991-92, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Sir John Wallis: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore on a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore, under S. 66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922, on the question whether the appellant, the Bharat Insurance Company, was liable to be assessed under that Act to income-tax in respect of the profits allotted to participating policy holders who were entitled under their contract to 90 per cent. of the profits made in the participating branch of the business. The Bharat Insurance Company was incorporated under the Companies Act in 1882, for the purpose of making and effecting assurances on lives and carrying on other insurance business. Under the provisions of Ss. 5 and 6, Life Assurance Act, 1912, the company's life assurance business has to be kept entirely separate from its other businesses, if any, and under S. 8(1) it is obliged to have a quinquennial valuation made by an actuary and to cause an abstract of the report of such actuary to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)63CTR(Cal)125,[1988]171ITR181(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Orient Paper Mills Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1971-72; the relevant accounting year ending on March 31, 1971. In its return and in the assessment, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 46,798 incurred on tea, tiffin and refreshments at a conference of the salesmen and distributing agents of the assessee at its mill. The Income-tax Officer held that 75 per cent. of the said expenditure was in the nature of entertainment and disallowed an amount of Rs. 34,100 out of the said Rs. 46,798 under Section 37(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), which was included in the total income of the assessee.2. In the said assessment year, the assessee at its mill premises provided boarding and lodging facilities to its employees and visitors who were charged for such facilities. In respect of the aforesaid, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,59,407 in the said assessment year and also recovered charges in respect thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1960]40ITR6(Cal)
This is an appeal by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from a judgment off Danckwerts J. dated July 29, 1958, in proceedings brought against them by the present trustees of the will of William Munro Tapp, deceased, for the determination by the court of a question concerning the estate duty payable on the death of Arthur Gerard Sentance Tapp (hereinafter called 'the deceased') in respect of his interest under a trust contained in the testators will for the payment out of the income of the trust fund thereby constituted of an annuity of pounds 3,000 to three named beneficiaries, including the deceased (who was the second of the three to die), or such one or more of them as should for the time being be living, and if more than one in equal shares.The question in the appeal is whether, having regard to the terms of this trust, there was, on the death of the deceased, a passing under section 1 of the Finance Act, 1894, of property, in the shape of the share original an accruing of the ann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(3)MLJ993; 2012(3)KantLJ177; 2012(6)SCC1; 2012(2)KCCR50SN; 2012(4)SCJ318
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI.1. We have had the benefit of carefully considering the erudite judgment delivered by our esteemed and learned Brother Radhakrishnan, J. Regretfully, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to disagree with the views expressed therein concerning the non-applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short "the 2009 Act") to the unaided non-minority schools.2. The judgment of Brother Radhakrishnan, J. fully sets out the various provisions of the 2009 Act as well as the issues which arise for determination, the core issue concerns the constitutional validity of the 2009 Act.Introduction3. To say that "a thing is constitutional is not to say that it is desirable" [see Dennis v. United States, (1950) 341 US 494].4. A fundamental principle for the interpretation of a written Constitution has been spelt out in R. v. Burah [reported in (1878) 5 I.A. 178] which reads as under:"The established Courts of Justice, when a que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC388; JT1999(7)SC457; 1999(6)SCALE204; (2000)1SCC481
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This appeal under Section 116A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter, the Act, for short) has been preferred by the candidate who lost at the election and also in the election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1, who had succeeded at the polls.2. Election to the 65 - Guruvayur Legislative Assembly constituency in Kerala was held on 27.4.1996. The appellant contested the election on the symbol of 'ladder' of the Muslim League Party with the support of the United Democratic Front. The respondent No. 1 was an independent candidate supported by the Left Democratic Front owing allegiance to Communist Party of India (Marxist). There were seven other contesting candidates also. The result was declared on 8-5-1996. The real contest was between the appellant and the respondent No. 1. The appellant secured 37034 votes. Respondent No. 1 secured 39870 votes. Thus the respondent No. 1 succeeded by a margin of 2836 votes over the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!