Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC254; [1954]26ITR750(SC)
Bhagwati, J.1. The respondent, the assessee, is a limited company and has its head office in London. It has three branches in India. The control and management of its business during the five chargeable accounting periods (commencing from the 1st September, 1939, and ending on the 31st March, 1944) were in London but as its Indian profits exceeded the London profits it was treated as a resident company under Section 4-A (c), sub-clause (b), of the Income-tax Act. 2.The assessee had chosen as its standard period the previous years for the assessment years 1936-37 and 1938-39 under Section 6(2) (b) of the Excess Profits Tax Act. Its profits for these years as determined in the respective income-tax assessments were as follows :- Previous year for 1936-37 assessment year - (a) Indian profits - Rs. 10,525 (b) London profits - Rs. 66,386 Previous year for 1938-39 assessment year - (c) Indian profits - Rs. 79,611 (d) London profits - Rs. 20,813 3. The Excess Profits Tax Officer treated the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC62; (1955)57BOMLR702; 1955CriLJ193; (1954)IILLJ694SC; [1955]1SCR887
Bose, J. 1. This case is unimportant in itself, for a small fine of Rs. 50 (Rs. 25 on each of two counts) has been imposed for a couple of breaches under section 52(f) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, read with rule 18(5) and (6) of the Rules framed under the Act. But the question involved is of general importance in the State of Bombay and affects a large number of similar establishments, so in order to obtain a clarification of the law, this has been selected as a test case. 2. The appellant is the owner of a small establishment called the Honesty Engineering Works situate in Ahmedabad in the State of Bombay. He employs three workers. He does business in a very small way by going to certain local mills, collecting orders from them for spare parts, manufacturing the parts so ordered in his workshop, delivering them to the mills when ready and collecting the money therefore. No buying or selling is done on the premises. The question is whether a concern of this nature ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC70; 1955(0)BLJR98; 1955CriLJ249; [1955]1SCR965
Jagannadhadas, J. 1. The appellant in this case was a clerk in the office of the Running Shed Foreman of the East Indian Railway at Kanpur. He was convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months, and also to a fine of Rs. 200. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal and by the High Court in revision. The charge against the appellant was that of the 6th of January, 1951, he accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 150 from the complainant, Gurphekan - a retrenched cleaner in the Locomotive Department of the Railway, examined as P.W. 2 - as a motive for getting him re-employed in the Railway (by arranging with some superior officer). There was an alternative charge under section 162 of the Indian Penal Code but it is no longer necessary to notice it since the conviction is for the main charge under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Police Establishment having receive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1955]27ITR126(SC); [1955]1SCR941
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. The appellant is a public limited joint stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with its registered office at Calcutta. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and piece-goods. On the 28th of July, 1944, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to it under Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act calling upon it to file the return of its income for the assessment year 1944-45 (account year being 1943-44). Before the expiry of the due date for filing the return the account books of the appellant company together with the documents relevant to the accounts, were taken into custody by the Sub-Divisional Officer Narayanganj and it is alleged that these remained in the custody of the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate till January, 1950, when they were handed back to the appellant. In this situation the assessee pleaded for extension of time to furnish the return. This request was refused, and a show cause not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC74; (1955)57BOMLR617; [1955]25CompCas1(SC); [1955]27ITR1(SC); [1955]1SCR876
Ghulam Hasan, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting point of law under the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was stated thus : 'Whether 60% of the dividend amounting to Rs. 2,750 - received by the assessee from the two Tea companies is agricultural income and as such exempt under section 4(3)(viii) of the Act.' 3. Chagla, C.J. and Tendolkar J., who heard the reference, answered the question in the negative by two separate but concurring judgments dated 28, March, 1952. 4. The facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellant, Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar, was, in the accounting year 1949-50, a shareholder in two Tea : companies, Patrakola Tea Company Ltd., and Bishnauth Tea Company Ltd., and received from the aforesaid companies dividends aggregating to Rs. 2,750. The two companies carried on business of growing and manufacturing tea. By rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, made in exercise of the powers conferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC79; (1955)57BOMLR622; [1955]27ITR20(SC); [1955]1SCR810
Venkatarama Ayyar J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay on a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question for determination is as to the validity of certain re-assessments made under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. 2. In proceedings for assessment of excess profits for the year 1941, the appellant Company applied for relief under section 26(3) of the Act, which so far as is material for the purpose of this appeal, runs as follows : 'If on an application made to it through the Excess Profits Tax Officer the Central Board of Revenue is satisfied that the computation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule I of the profits of a business during any chargeable accounting period would be inequitable, owing to any of the following circumstances, namely - * * * (b) the provisions of buildings, plant or machinery which will not be required for the purposes of the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC271; (1954)26CTR(SC)736; [1954]26ITR736(SC)
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the High Court summarily dismissed an application made under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer to it the question of law said by the appellant to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 2. The appellant is a Hindu undivided family, comprised of Dhirajlal and his two brothers Hiralal and Kirtilal, Dhirajlal being the karta of the family. Girdharlal Trikamlal who was the father of Dhirajlal, Hiralal and Kirtilal, was the head of the joint Hindu family before his death on 26th July, 1945. During his lifetime he and one of his sons Dhirajlal were also carrying on business separately in their firm name Girdharlal Trikamlal & Co., as dealers in stocks and shares. This firm was dissolved on the death of Girdharlal and a new firm comprised of Dhirajlal and his younger brother...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC176; [1954]26ITR765(SC); [1955]1SCR952
Das, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a consolidated reference made on the 19th April, 1949, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. The reference arose out of four several proceedings for assessment to excess profits tax of the appellant, the chargeable accounting periods being periods ending with 31st March of each of the years 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. 2. The relevant facts appearing from the consolidated statement of the case are as follows :- Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills, the appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as the assessee firm), is a firm constituted in 1935 upon terms and conditions set forth in a deed of partnership dated the 6th November, 1935. The partners were Narain Singh and two of his sons, Ram Singh and Gurdayal Singh, their respective shares in the partnership being 6 annas, 5 annas and 5 annas. The business of the firm which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC104; (1955)57BOMLR600; 1955CriLJ196; [1955]1SCR903
Bhagwati, J. 1. Anokhelal Ranjit Singh, original accused I and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1954, Harnarain Nanakchand, original accused 2 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1954 and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma, original accused 4 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1954, along with one Rubidas Radhelal, original accused 3 since deceased and one Bankelal Devisingh still absconding were charged under section 397 read with section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed dictate and used deadly weapons at the time of committing the same and were also charged under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code with having committed the murder of Lawrence Quadros at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction while committing the said dacoity. The trial was held before the Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay with the aid of a special jury. The jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty against each of the accused and the learned Sessions Judge co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC257; [1954]26ITR725(SC)
Mehr Chand Mahjan, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case is a resident of Poona in the State of Bombay. He carries on business there and also holds property in the city of Bombay. During the eight years beginning with 1940-41 and ending with 1947-48 he was assessed on a total income of Rs. 9,75,265. The Central Government, thinking that he had evaded payment of tax and had concealed substantial profits, in the year 1948 referred his case for investigation to the Commission acting under the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. The Commission was directed to investigate what profits he had made during the period commencing with 1st of January, 1939, and ending on 31st December, 1947. After investigation, the Commission, by their report dated 1st May, 1953, held that the total income which escaped taxation during the relevant years was in the sum of Rs. 2,26,900 and the assessee's liability was in the sum of Rs. 1,96,175. 2. During the in...
Tag this Judgment!