Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995]215ITR22(SC); JT1995(3)SC425; 1995(2)SCALE596; (1995)3SCC525; [1995]3SCR170
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the question referred to it in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The question referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act was '(W)hether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the statutory allowance mentioned in Section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be allowed every time separately in computing the income from house property falling to the share of each of the co-owners including the assessee?'2. The assessment year relevant herein is 1962-63. The respondent was the owner of an undivided one-third share in a house property during the relevant period. He alongwith his brother and other co-sharers was occupying the house for his own residence. In the respondent's assessment, the I.T.O. deducted the amount specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 23 from out of the annual letting value...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(5)SC311; 2007(5)SCALE429; 2007(1)LC0515(SC); (2007)6VST783(SC); 2007AIRSCW3071; JT2007(5)SC311; 2007-08(6)VATToday128; 2007(2)KCCRSN81; 2007(4)AIRKarR295
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in special leave petitions. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the Circular dated 23.10.1999 (Circular No. 31/1999-2000) is valid and Circular No. 5/1996-97 dated 12.4.1996 was inoperative. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Appellants are dealers registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act'). Their business activities inter-alia include business of leasing machinery, equipment and motor vehicles. Section 5C of the Act deals with levy of tax on transfer of the right to use the goods which is treated as a transfer for the purpose of levy of sales tax within the State. Originally the levy was on 'taxable turnover'. An amendment was brought in 1992 to the said provision substituting the expression 'total turnover' for 'taxable turnover'. The same was questioned by several assessees. A Division Bench of the High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(9)SC409; 2007(8)SCALE88; (2007)9SCC691; 2007(4)AIRKarR435; 2007AIRSCW3451
S H. Kapadia, J.This civil appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on 5.8.2006 in Tax Appeal No. 22/1996 holding the proceedings under Section 15(2) of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ('the said 1979 Act') are not barred by time.2. A short question which arises for determination in tills civil appeal is: Whether mere calling for the records for examination of the case on 16.3.1996 by Additional Commissioner constituted exercise of power within the meaning of Section 15(4) of the said 1979 Act so as to fall within limitation period specified therein?3. The appellant is the manufacturer of branded agarbathis having its manufacturing unit at Mysore. It causes entry of various raw materials into the local area of Mysore. For the Assessment Years 1986-87 to 1989-90, the Assessing Officer ('AO') passed an order of assessment levying tax on all the items imported into the local area of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC27; JT1986(1)SC749; 1986(2)SCALE708; (1986)4SCC704; [1987]1SCR86; [1987]64STC1(SC); 1987(1)LC54(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ. 1. This appeal by certificate raises a short question as to the constitutional validity of Section 29-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. This section, which was introduced in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 by Section 17 of the U.P. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969, has been held to be constitutionally valid by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 13th July 1970. The appellants question the correctness of this view taken by the High Court.2. The appellants carry on business as dealers in coal and they are registered as such under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Prior to 1st October 1965, there was no sales tax levied on sale of coal and for the first time on 1st October 1965, coal became a taxable commodity under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The appellants, proceeding on the footing that sales tax was payable by them on sale of coal from and after 1st October 1965, collected amounts by way of sales tax from the purchasers and submitted their returns for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)429; (1997)138CTR(SC)214; [1997]223ITR825(SC); JT1997(1)SC155; 1996(9)SCALE225; (1997)1SCC352; [1996]Supp9SCR775
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Clause (b) of Section 40 of the Income Tax Act specifies one of the amounts which shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. As it stood at the relevant time, it read thus:40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profit and gains of business or profession', -(b) in the case of any firm, any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration made by the firm to any partner of the firm.Explanation 1 : Where interest is paid by a firm to any partner of the firm who has also paid interest to the firm, the amount of interest to be disallowed under this clause shall be limited to the amount by which the payment of interest by the firm to the partner exceeds the payment of interest by the partner to the firm.Explanation 2: Where an individual is a partner in a fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC342; (1992)108CTR(SC)294; (1993)1GLR183; [1993]201ITR422(SC); 1992(3)SCALE166; (1992)4SCC742; [1992]Supp3SCR56
1. This appeal is against the judgment of Gujarat High Court dated January 12, 1983 dismissing the appellants' writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 wherein the question raised was whether immovable property would vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Section 269-I, upon a final order being made under Section 269F(6) and consequently whether a tenant governed by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 can be evicted from such property.2. The appellants constitute a partnership in the name and style of M/s. Satkar Hotel and Restaurant and for their business had taken on rent the 3-storeyed Shamalaji Kripa building in Sayajigunj, Vadodara from its owner M/s. S.S. Parshottamdas & Company on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. The said M/s. Parshottamdas & Co. incurred huge debts for the repayment of which they executed a Composition Deed in favour of a Committee formed by the creditors...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC398; [1961]41ITR225(SC); [1961]2SCR229
Hidayatullah, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Circle II, has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave, against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in an income-tax reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The National Syndicate, Bombay (referred to in this judgment as the respondent) was a firm consisting of three partners. This firm acquired on January 11, 1945, a tailoring business as a going concern from one Chambal Singh for Rs. 89,321/-. Included in this amount was the consideration paid for sewing machines (Rs. 72,000) and a motor lorry (Rs. 8,000). The assessment concerns the year of account of the respondent, January 11, 1945 to February 28, 1946. The business of the respondent was to prepare garments for Government departments, and during the war years, this appears to have been a profitable business. Immediately after the respondent acquired this business, the last war came to an end, and the respondent found it difficult to continue the bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1134; [1977]107ITR195(SC); (1977)2SCC368; [1977]2SCR762
P.K. Goswami, J.1. These two appeals by certificate are from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court since reported in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I v. Textile Machinery Corporation. : [1971]80ITR428(Cal) . The two appeals relate respectively to two assessment years 1958-59 (calendar year 1957) and 1959-60 (calendar year 1958). The matter relates to the claim by the assessee for exemption of tax under Section 15-C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (briefly the Act). 2. The matter came up before the High Court on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Act. The two questions referred to were as follows:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Steel Foundry Division was an industrial undertaking to which Section 15-C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applied? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Jute Mill Division set up by the assessee-co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC414; [1962]Supp(1)SCR282
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 133(1)(a) of the constitution. 2. The appellant is a textile mill at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. It generates electricity for the purpose of running its mills and for other purposes connected therewith. It does not sell electrical energy to any person. 3. Under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (No. 10 of 1949) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1956 (Act No. 7 of 1956) the Government of Madhya Pradesh levied upon the appellant electricity duty amounting to Rs. 2,78,417/- for a certain period. The appellant paid it under compulsion and thereafter preferred a writ petition to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which it challenged the validity of the levy on two grounds. The first ground was that upon a proper construction of s. 3 of the C.P. & Berar Electricity Duty Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1279; I(1997)BC552(SC); [1997]224ITR753(SC); JT1997(3)SC441; 1997(2)SCALE667; (1997)4SCC89; [1997]2SCR793
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to this Court under Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') reads as follows : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim to the benefit of Clause (b) of Section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been rightly disallowed?.2. The assessment year in question is 1976-77. The case of the assessee firm was that M/s. Shanti Kumar Jain, Asok Kumar Jain, Raj Kumar Jain and Niranjan were partners in the firm in their capacity as Karta of respective HUF. They have advanced monies to the assessee firm in their individual capacity. The assessee firm paid interest to them on the investment made in their respective individual capacity. It is the further case of the assessee firm that it has maintained two separate ledger accounts of the partners : one of individual as loan creditor and another of Karta of HUF as partner in the firm. The sources of the money, according to the as...
Tag this Judgment!