Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-23-1976
Reported in : [1978]113ITR745(Guj)
..... exceeds one-fifth of the amount of salary payable to the employee for any period of his employment after the aforesaid date.' 6. this sub-clause was omitted by the finance act, 1968, with effect from april 1, 1969, and in its place sub-clause (v) as extracted above as inserted in clause (a) of section 40. in our ..... of benefit, amenity or perquisite to an employee. in the submission of the learned advocate for the assessee, by the legislative changes brought about in clause (c) by the finance act, 1968, which deleted sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) and inserted sub-clause (v) to clause (a) in section 40, the distinction between an employee and a ..... ii) is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the company and the benefit derived by or accruing to it therefrom.' (iii) (omitted by finance act, 1968, with effect from 1-4-1969). 3. on behalf of the revenue it has been contended that having regard to the legislative history of the provision contained in section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-08-1976
Reported in : [1976]38STC259(P& H)
..... by the supreme court:the directorate was not carrying on the business of buying or selling the goods within the meaning of section 2(c) of the act [the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941]. it was not selling surplus goods for profit, but it was merely disposing of the surplus material by way of realisation and the transactions ..... cannot be held to be carrying on the business with a commercial motive. it was further held that a person cannot be a dealer under the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, unless he carries on the business of selling goods in a commercial sense. in the present case, the petitioner cannot be held by any stretch ..... were, therefore, not taxable as sales under the act.42. in deputy commercial tax officer, saidapet, madras v. enfield india limited co-operative canteen limited [1968] 21 s.t.c. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-19-1976
Reported in : [1977]40STC230(Cal)
..... of the business and, as such, liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941. the impugned order dated 4th may, 1968, negatived that contention. the petitioners challenge the propriety of that order. section 17 of the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, provides that where the ownership of the business of a registered dealer is transferred absolutely ..... and sujit kumar laik. on 29th march, 1963, petitioner no. 1 and the deceased, narayan chandra laik, father of petitioner no. 2, obtained registration certificate under the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941, from the commercial tax officer, asansol charge. on 6th april, 1968, the aforesaid ajit kumar laik and sujit kumar laik retired from the said business with effect from 1st april .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-18-1976
Reported in : [1979]118ITR946(Cal)
..... allowed. in order to determine the question whether there was wrong calculation at the rate applicable to priority income it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the finance act, 1965. section 2(5)(a)(i) proceeds as follows : 'in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of april, 1965- ( ..... refer to this aspect any further. it was contended alternatively that the petitioner was entitled to certain deductions as provided under section 2(5)(a)(i) of the finance act, 1965, as the said receipts were income or profits derived from export of goods or merchandise out of india. the petitioner also contended that the petitioner was entitled ..... -75 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 had taken that view. it may also be contended that there being no export and profits in respect of import entitlement the petitioner was not entitled to deduction of tax as contemplated under section 2(5)(a)(i) of the finance act, 1965. i am not concerned at this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-21-1976
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas149(Delhi); 12(1976)DLT90; 1976RLR477
..... other proceedings. i do not go into the question whether the petition is barred by time on the ground that the cause of action arose some time in 1968 or 1969, and the proceedings have been instituted several years later. i have also considered whether the application should be returned for representation, but i find that ..... has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the companies (amendment act, i960)'. this provision shows that the court's jurisdiction arises concurrently with other courts in respect of suits or proceedings by or against the company. the present proceeding ..... petition under section 446 of the companies act, 1956, moved by jaipal singh alleging himself to be. contributory of the company because he is a depositor. the application has been moved on 30th october, 1975, and seeks to challenge a resolution of m/s. tanwar finance (p) ltd., passed on 16th november. 1968, by which the company was sent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-01-1976
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Ker)85
..... vs. union of india, counsel for the petitioners cited the decision in lachmi narain vs. union of india. there, certain notifications granting exemption under the bengal finance (sales tax) act. 1941 were cancelled, and the validity of the cancellation was attacked. it was held by the supreme court that the exemption can be granted only after not ..... framed under a statute applies uniform treatment to every one or to all members of same group of class. the oil and natural gas commission and industrial finance corporation are all required by the statutes to frame regulations inter alia for the purpose of the duties and conduct and conditions of service of officers and other ..... oil and natural gas commissions case that rules and regulations framed by the oil and natural gas commission, the life insurance corporation of india and the industrial finance corporation have the force of law. in paragraph 33 of the judgment ray c.j., observed :'there is no substantial difference between a rule and a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-30-1976
Reported in : [1979]119ITR664(Bom)
..... question should be made absolute and in that behalf he relied upon the amendment that has been made in s. 80m of the act by s. 10 of the finance act of 1968, which came into operation from april 1, 1968. it may be stated that by the amendment introduced in s. 80m what was done was that the words, 'received by it ..... with reference to the net dividend income and not gross dividend income. it may be stated that in the statement of objects and reasons and notes on clauses of the finance bill, 1968, it has been clarified why the deletion of the words, 'received by it' was effected and it has been explained thus : 'the effect of the amendment ..... the case of new great insurance co. ltd. : [1973]90itr348(bom) to the assessment year in question without considering the effect of the amendment operative from april 1, 1968, and in thus holding that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under section 80m on the gross dividend before deduction of the proportionate management expense ?' 2. in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-29-1976
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR207; 1977MhLJ389
..... inter-connected. it appears that the basis of the contributions claimed was the amended definition of 'employee' in section 2(9) of the act, which became operative on january 28, 1968. this dispute between the corporation and the company came to be decided by the employees' state insurance court at bombay under section 75 ..... propaganda in respect of the goods manufactured by the factory. the planning department, statistical department, finance department and marketing department in the head office wore found to be doing the-work of the factory and the finance department was found to be making payments to the factory workers. on the evidence of the ..... of the central government, after giving six months' notice of its intention of so doing by notification in the official gazette, extend the provisions of this act or any of them, to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise.admittedly the learned counsel for the corporation is not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-26-1976
Reported in : AIR1977SC999; [1977]106ITR368(SC); (1977)1SCC691; [1977]2SCR220; 1977(9)LC31(SC)
..... time by the income-tax and excess profits tax (amendment) act, 1947 (act 22 of 1947) which inserted a section 12b in the indian income-tax act, 1922. it taxed capital gains arising after march 31, 1976. the tax on capital gains was virtually abolished by the indian finance act, 1949 which confined the operation of section 12b to capital gains ..... arising before april 1, 1948. capital gains tax was, however, revived with effect from april 1, 1957 by the finance (no. 3) act 1956 which inserted new section 12b instead of the old section 12b ..... in the act of 1922. 6. in the present appeal we are, however, concerned with the act of 1961. it may be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-1976
Reported in : AIR1977Bom344
..... taxes, out of which he had remitted rs. 989/- by money order and had challenged the demand for permitted increases and municipal taxes by his letter dated 13-1-1968. the present demand also contained a demand for permitted increases and municipal taxes to the extent of rs. 502.09. but nevertheless the respondent chose to square up ..... for rs. 1288/- towards the arrears was deliberately inflated and the actual amount could have worked out to rs. 1240/- for the period 2nd june 1962 to 17th december 1968. in these circumstances, the notice of demand is not valid. the petitioner, therefore, could not bring the present suit for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent.10 ..... . firstly, the present case is governed by section 12(3)(a) of the bombay rent act because the respondent neglected to make payment within one month from the date of the service of the notice dated 22-11-1968 served on 29-11-1968. secondly, the respondent is not entitled to relief against forfeiture of tenancy as there is no .....
Tag this Judgment!