Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1953]23ITR82(SC)
BOSE, J. - The following question was referred to the High Court of Madras by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when an assessment has been made under Section 23(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, determining the assessee companys income as nil and when proceedings under Section 34 were subsequently started to assess the income which the Income-tax Officer believed to have escaped assessment the assessee company is entitled to claim that the loss of profits and gains (including depreciation allowance) sustained by it in the previous year should be determined in the course of such proceedings.'We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1941-42. The assessee is the Anglo-French Textile Company, a company which is incorporated in the United Kingdom. It owns spinning and weaving mills at Pondicherry in French India and manufactures yarn and cloth there. The raw mate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1953]4SCR476
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. These are petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India for directions or orders or writs to enforce the fundamental rights of the petitioners to property by prohibiting the respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, from enforcing their alleged rights under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950.2. The several petitioners entered into contracts and agreements with the previous proprietors of certain estates and mahals in the State under which it is said they acquired the rights to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves, to cultivate, culture and acquire lac, and to cut and carry away teak and timber and miscellaneous species of trees called hardwood and bamboos. The contracts and agreements are in writing; some of them are registered. There is no dispute about their genuineness, and it has not been alleged that they are collusive or fraudulent transactions. Their dates and the several sums of money paid as consideration are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC105; (1953)IMLJ381; (1953)IMLJ385(SC); [1953]4SCR448; [1953]4SCR454
Bose, J.1. The following question was referred to the High Court of Madras by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when an assessment has been made under section 23(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, determining the assessee company's income as 'nil' and when proceedings under section 34 were subsequently started to assess the income which the Income-Tax Officer believed to have escaped assessment the assessee company is entitled to claim that the loss of profits and gains (including depreciation allowance) sustained by it in the previous year should be determined in the course of such proceedings.' 2. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1941-42. The assessee is the Anglo-French Textile Company, a company which is incorporated in the United Kingdom. It owns spinning and weaving mills at Pondicherry in French India and manufactures yarn and cloth there. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC113; [1953]32ITR87(SC); (1953)IMLJ436(SC); [1953]4SCR486
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. For several years prior to 1939-40 the respondents, who are brothers, had been carrying of in partnership the business of 'The Hindu,' a daily newspaper of Madras. The profits of this business had been charged to income-tax in the hands of the respondents under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1918. The firm's year of account was a period of twelve months ending with 30th June each year. In respect of the profits of the year of accounting ending 30th June, 1938, assessment was made in the year 1939-40 and the firm was charged to income-tax for the assessment year. On the 1st March, 1940, the respondents transferred their business as a going concern to a private limited company called 'Kasturi and Co. Ltd.' 3. For the assessment year 1940-41 the respondents claimed that the firm was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC108
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. These are petitions under Article 32, Constitution of India, for directions or orders or writs to enforce the fundamental rights of the petitioners to property by prohibiting the respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, from enforcing their alleged rights under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950.2. The several petitioners entered into contracts and agreements, with the previous proprietors of certain estates and mahals in the State under which it is said they acquired the rights to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves, to cultivate, culture and acquire lac, and to cut and carry away teak and timber and miscellaneous species of trees called hardwood and bamboos. The contracts and agreements are in writing; some of them are registered. There is no dispute about their genuineness, and it has not been alleged that they are collusive or fraudulent transactions. Their dates and the several sums of money paid as consideration are set ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1953]23ITR101(SC)
MAHAJAN, J. - This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 18th January, 1950, delivered on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, whereby the High Court answered the two questions referred in the affirmative.The appellant is a public limited company incorporated in the United Kingdom and owns a spinning and weaving mill located at Pondicherry in French India. The year of account of the appellant is the calendar year. In the year 1939 no sales of yarn or cloth manufactured by the company were effected in British India, though in the previous year such sales were effected. All the purchases of cotton required for the mills were made in British India by Messrs. Best & Co., Ltd. Under an agreement between the appellant and Messrs. Best & Co., Ltd., Madras, dated 11th July, 1939, Messrs. Best & Co., Ltd., were constituted the agents of the appellant for the purpose of its business in India. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC95; (1953)ILLJ186SC; (1953)IMLJ427(SC); [1953]4SCR439
Das, J. 1. This appeal has been filed with the special leave granted by this Court on May 10, 1951. By the order granting such leave the appeal has been restricted to one point only, namely, 'whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh had the power to extend the time for making the award ex post facto, i.e., after the time limit originally fixed therefore had expired.' 2. There is no dispute as to the facts. An industrial dispute having arisen between the appellant company and its employees, by Labour Department Notification No. 637(ST)/XVIII-53(ST)/50 dated February 18, 1950, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh was pleased, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with section 4 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U.P. Act No. XXVIII of 1947), to refer the said dispute to the Labour Commissioner, U.P., or a Conciliation Officer of the State Government nominated by him for adjudication on seven several issues specified therein and to direct the adjudicator to conclude the ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC88; (1953)ILLJ190SC; (1953)IMLJ431(SC); [1953]4SCR428
Das, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision dated April 24, 1950, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad confirming the decision dated February 2, 1950, of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, which had declared the one-day strike by the appellant the took place on November 7, 1949, to be an illegal strike. The relevant facts are as follows :- 2. On October 13, 1949, the appellants through the Secretary of their Union gave a notice to the respondents, under section 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that they proposed to call a one-day strike on the expiry of November 6, 1949, for the fulfilment of demands, 16 in number, noted therein. This strike notice was, in accordance with rule 85 of the rules framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sent to (1) the Conciliation Officer (Central), Dhanbad, (2) the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, (3) the Chief Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1953]4SCR215
ORDERMahajan, J.1. In its issue of the 30th October, 1952, the 'Times of India', a daily newspaper published in Bombay and New Delhi, a leading article was published under the heading 'A disturbing decision'. The burden of it was that in a singularly oblique and infelicitous manner the Supreme Court had by a majority decision tolled the knell of the much maligned dual system prevailing in the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts by holding that the right to practise in any High Court conferred on advocates of the Supreme Court, made the rules in force in those High Courts requiring advocates appearing on the Original Side to be instructed by attorneys inapplicable to them. The article concluded with the following passage :- 'The fact of the matter appears to be that in the higher legal latitudes at New Delhi and elsewhere, the dual system is regarded as obsolete and anomalous. There is a tell-tale note at the top of the rules framed by the Supreme Court for enrolment of advocates and agents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC75; (1953)55BOMLR278; (1953)IMLJ211(SC)
Mahajan, J.1. In its issue of 30th October 1952 the 'Times of India', a daily newspaper published in Bombay and New Delhi, a leading article was published under the heading 'A disturbing decision'. The burden of it was that in a singularly oblique and infelicitous manner the Supreme Court had by a majority decision tolled the knell of the much maligned dual system prevailing in the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts by holding that the right to practise in any High Court conferred on advocates of the Supreme Court, made the rules in force in those High Courts requiring advocates appearing on the Original Side to be instructed by attorneys inapplicable to them. The article concluded with the following passage: 'The fact of the matter appears to be that in the higher legal latitudes at New Delhi and elsewhere, the dual system is regarded as obsolete and anomalous. There is a tell tale note at the top of the rules framed by the Supreme Court for enrolment of advocates and agents to the effec...
Tag this Judgment!