Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi809
..... were also referred to an un-reported decisionof shah and mitter jj. in supreme court civil appealsnos. 657 and 658 of 1965. the balgaum district commissioner of income tax purchase & sales union limited v. the state of mysoredecided on 3/05/1968 where it was held that although the contract of agency might be created by ..... was not in the form prescribed, wasenforceable against the state. in both these casesit was held that the provisions of section 175(3) ofthe government of india act, 1935 or the correspondingprovisions of article 299(1) of the constitution aremandatory and their non-observance has the effectof rendering the contract void and un-enforceable.(14) ..... the trialcourt was in error in holding that since the person whohad made the appointment of the plaintiff had theauthority to do so and the arrangement was acted uponand subsequently ratified by the government the defendant was estopped from challenging the contract asvoid and un-enforceable.(12) it was not disputed that the iron .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi555; [1971]82ITR345(Delhi)
..... the following question under section 66 (1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the act) :- 'whetheron the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the managing agency remuneration was the income of b. n. bhaskar earned in his individual capacity or the income of the hindu undivided family 'of which he was the karta ..... and directed that this remuneration should be assessed in the hands of b b. n. bhaskar as an individual. the department preferred an appeal before the income-tax appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) aginst the order of the appellate assistant commissioner, but the tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order ..... has, however, made this refernce at the instance of the commissioner under section 66(1) of the act. (5) shri a. n. kirpal, the learned counsel for the revenue, has sought to support the order of the income-tax officer on the following grounds:- (i)that the managing agency firm of m/s bhaskar brothers came .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi164
..... thereforee, held to be not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed. khushwaqat rai was however, held liable to render accounts of the income of the said house.the high court appeal on october 3, 1967 set aside the finding that dr. jagmohan lal was ..... of proceedings on the ground that an appeal was pending in the high court in his aforesaid suit. on november 15, 1961 the additional controller stayed the proceedings in the eviction matter.4. after the decision of the high court in appeal in the ..... undertaking was also given for depositing further rent regularly. the order under section 15(1) of the delhi rent control section act passed by the additional controller on june 6, 1969 was thereforee, also in the nature of a direction enforcing an undertaking ..... , ajmere gate, delhi, on a rent of rs. 67 per month, together with rs. 6/7/- as house tax and rs. 3/- as water tax, totalling rs. 76/7/- per month. this house originally belonged to one hira lal, after whose death his son khushawaqat .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi75; [1971]81ITR126(Delhi)
..... assesee-company. in that view, the payment of rs. 6,00,000/, was only a capital expenditure and was not a permissible deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the income-tax act, 1922. (31) on behalf of the assessed certain cases were cited, ft however seems to us that those cases have no reference to the point which is sought to be ..... of the contract to take up on lease for a period of thirty years was an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act). as is well-known this is a residuary head of revenue expenditure and reads as under :- '(xv)any expenditure (not being an allowance of the nature ..... by it was not an allowable expenditure. but on 17-7-1961 a revised return declaring a loss of rs. 2,37,340.00 was filed and the sum of rs, l,70,000.00 paid to delhi glass works limited was claimed as an allowable deduction under the income-tax act. (8) the income-tax officer rejected the assessed's claim regarding rs. 1,70 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi240
..... question of fact or law or a mixed question of law and fact, etc.) was also considered by the supreme court in meenakshi mills, madurai v. the commissioner of income tax, madras, 0044/1956 : [1956]1scr691 and the conclusion arrived at by their lordships supports my reasoning stated above.19. to sum up the conclusion that the tenant ..... it is, obviously erroneous in point of law, but, without any such misconception appearing ex facie, it may be that the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal. in those circumstances, too, the court must intervene. it has no ..... to the decision of magistrates which are arrived at without evidence to support them'.17. lastly, the conclusion that the requirements of section 19(4)(a) of the act are satisfied by the inference drawn from the primary facts involves a question of law being based on the construction of a statute, in edwards v. baristow, 1956 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT172
..... and the opinion of subba rao j. in : [1963]1scr721 , applied the same principle. in that case. dealing with the relevant provisions of the income tax act as amended by the finance act, it was held that the legislature had not conferred the said power to the executive by express language or by necessary intendment or implication. (10) in ..... of the supreme court in the state of mysore v. india sugar and refineries in civil appeal no. 12 of 1969; the appeal was dismissed on 28th march, 1961. the decision itself being unreported, i have not been able to get a copy of the said judgment. it is, however, clear from the above that the ..... service (p) ltd v. state of kerala) respectively which took the view that when the executive government exercised subordinate and delegated legislative powers, the power to act retrospectively could not be exercised unless the said power was expressly conferred by the legislature on the government there has been anelaborate discussion of this question in the mysore .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1971]41CompCas596(Delhi); [1971]81ITR303(Delhi)
..... matter of fact the companies had distributed the dividend. it was some of the shareholders who refused to take them in that form. section 16(2) of the income-tax act, 1922, which was repealed subsequently, applied to the year in question. that section was interpreted by their lordships of the supreme court in the case of j. ..... dividend for the year in question, the specie had to be valued in terms of the market rate. the income-tax officer relied upon the decision of the supreme court in the case ofkantilal manilal v. commissioner of income-tax, : [1961]41itr275(sc) and held that the specie had to be valued at the market rate on the relevant date. ..... correct. it was common ground between the assessed and the revenue that, in accordance with the decision of the supreme court in kantilal manilal v. commissioner of income-tax, : [1961]41itr275(sc) whenever the question of valuing the dividend declared in specie arose, the specie had to be valued in accordance with the market rate prevailing at .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi693; [1972]83ITR321(Delhi)
..... , estate duty was liable to be paid on the sum of rs. 35,824.00as per provisions of section 10 of the estate duty act, 1953.'(2) the question arises out of the order of the income-tax appellate tribunal in estate duty appeal no. 72 of 1963-64. the facts lie in a narrow compass. the deceased was one shri kashmiri ..... lal who died on 21-10-1961 and the accountable person is his son shri prahlad rai, who will hereafter be referred to as the assessed. ..... mentioned above, but held that the provisions of s. 10 of the estate duty act were applicable and as such the addition made by the assistant controller of estate duty was up-held. (5) the respondent took up the matter in further appeal to the income-tax appellate tribunal. the tribunal did not disturb the conclusion reached by the appellate controller about .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi51
..... was whether the installments, payable by the assessed were expenditure made in acquiring one of the raw materials of assessed's manufacture, as capital expenditure within the meaning of the income-tax act of 1922. it was held that 'the contract was entered into by the assessed wholly and exclusively for the purpose of supplying themselves with one of the raw materials of ..... . shri meenakshi mills ltd. : [1967]63itr609(sc) and commissioner of income-tax, bombay city i v. greaves cotton and co. ltd. : [1968]68itr200(sc) . (21) counsel for the revenue cited on the other hand, two other decisions of the supreme court. in commissioner of income-fax, bombay v. scindia steam navigation co. ltd. : [1961]42itr589(sc) which is a leading case on the subject .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi42; [1971]81ITR117(Delhi)
..... goodwill is also to be considered in a case arising under the excess profits tax act 15 of 1940. (20) in jogta coal corn. ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax, west bengal : [1959]36itr521(sc) the supreme court was dealing with a case under the indian income-tax act, 1922. the question had arisen in connection with the sale of certain lease ..... mrs. s. khanna the assessment years' are 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. the applications which raise a common question of law out of the orders of the income-tax appellate tribunal in the various wealth tax appeals filed before it, a common statement of case has, thereforee, been presented by the tribunal and ..... the goodwill has been separately mentioned and has been valued in the sale-deed.'(18) in s. c. cambatta and co. private limited v. commissioner of excess profits tax, bombay : [1961]41itr500(sc) . hidayatullah j. (as he then was) referred to some of the cases to which we have already drawn attention and then alluded to the case .....
Tag this Judgment!