Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC750; [1962]44ITR483(SC)
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the order of the High Court of Bombay dismissing summarily the appellant's petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act and has its registered office at Station Road, Cambay, in the State of Bombay. It appears that on May 1, 1943, the Nawab Saheb of Cambay representing the State of Cambay sold for and on behalf of the State the property known as 'Cambay State Mills' to a private limited company - 'Shree Vijaylaxmi Cotton Mills Ltd.' In the indenture of conveyance the vendor covenanted for himself and his successors that the vendor shall not during the period of five years from the date of the conveyance and during such further period thereafter as the Cambay Durbar may, from time to time, determine, levy, impose, claim or recover from the purchaser company and its successors and assigns any income-tax, super-tax, excess profits tax or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC736; [1960]40ITR605(SC); [1961]1SCR482
Sarkar, J.1. In 1944, the appellant was a resident of Lahore. On October 14, 1944, he was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Lahore, for the assessment year 1944-45 on an income of Rs. 49,047. As is well-known, in August, 1947, India was partitioned and Lahore came to be included in the newly created Dominion of Pakistan and went out of India. After the partition, the appellant shifted to Delhi and was residing there at all material times. 2. The appellant held shares in a company called Indra Singh and Sons Ltd. which had its office at Calcutta. The other shares in that company were held by Indra Singh and Ajaib Singh. The holdings of all the shareholders were equal. An annual general meeting of this company was held on April 17, 1943, in which the accounts for the year ending March 31, 1942, were placed for consideration. The accounts were passed at the meeting but no dividend was declared though the accounts disclosed large profits. 3. On June 11, 1947, an Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC210; [1960]40ITR494(SC); [1961]1SCR466
Shah, J.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax for Mysore, Travancore Cochin and Coorg at Bangalore referred under section 8(5) of the Travancore Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 (Malayalam Era) - hereinafter referred top as the Investigation Act read with section 113 of the Travancore Income-tax Regulation, 1096 (Malayalam Era) - hereinafter referred to as the Income Tax Act, the following questions to the High Court of Travancore-Cochin : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence before the Commission to come to the conclusion to which it came in its report (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case was the order C. No. 76 (1) I.T/51 dated 25-10-1951 of the Government of India Passed under the provisions of section 8(2) of the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act read with section 3 of the Opium and Revenue Laws (Extension of Application) Act of 1950, a legal and valid order (3) Whether o...
Tag this Judgment!