Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC50; [1965]57ITR299(SC); [1965]3SCR611
Sikri, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta in a reference under section 66 of the Income-tax Act. The four questions referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are : '(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the Income- tax Officer, Central Circle XIV, Calcutta, was competent to file the appeal before the tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-A, Calcutta (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 represented the surplus on the sale of lands which was the stock-in-trade of the assessee-company or was the value of goodwill alleged to have been transferred (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case by the sale of the whole business concern it could be held that there was taxable profit in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and view of the find...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC50b
Sikri, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta in a reference under s. 66 of the Income Tax Act. The four questions referred to the High Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are :'(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIV, Calcutta, was competent to file the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-A, Calcutta ? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 represented the surplus on the sale of lands which was the stock in trade of the assessee company or was the value of goodwill alleged to have been transferred (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case by the sale of the whole business concern it could be held that there was taxable profit in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 ? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the findings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1898; [1965]57ITR21(SC); [1965]3SCR604
Shah, J.1. The appellant is a Hindu undivided family and carries on business as a dealer in 'iron scrap and hardware'. Messrs Hoare Miller and Company Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - were owners of a jute pressing factory installed on a piece of land belonging to the Company. Adjacent to that land were two pieces of land : one was leasehold, and the other held by the Company as a licensee from the Government of West Bengal. On January 21, 1941 the Company leased out to one Ramnath Bajoria the jute pressing factory together with the machinery standing on the land owned by the Company for ten months commencing from January 10, 1941. Ramanath Bajoria failed to vacate and deliver up possession of the premises demised to him, after the expiry of the period of the lease, and the Company instituted a suit in ejectment against him.2. By an agreement dated October 31, 1942 the appellant agreed to purchase all the rights of the Company in the factory and the appurtenant premises for Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1803; 1966(0)BLJR258; [1965(11)FLR112]; (1965)IILLJ162SC; [1965]3SCR588
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the IndustrialTribunal, Bihar. It relates to the discharge of 119 workmen of the respondentwho were employed as cane carrier mazdoors or as cane carrier supervisors orjamadars. All these were seasonal workmen. It is necessary to set out in somedetail the circumstances leading to the discharge. The respondent is a sugarfactory and the crushing season starts usually in the first half of Novembereach year. We are concerned in the present appeal with November and December1960. It appears that from the season 1956-57, the respondent introduced anincentive bonus scheme in the factory. The scheme continued thereafter fromseason to season with certain changes. It also appears that in the beginning ofeach season, the respondent used to put forward the incentive bonus scheme andconsult the workmen. The same thing was done when the season 1960-61 was aboutto start in November 1960. But the scheme for this season proposed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC237; [1965]3SCR576
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 262 to 264 of 1964. Appeals from the judgment and decrees dated January 5, and January 22, 1959, and 24th November 1960 of the Patna High Court in appeals from Original Decrees Nos. 401 of 1953, and 297 and 298 of 1954 respectively. S.R. Ghosal and R.C. Prasad, for the appellant (in all the appeals). D.P. Singh, R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwala and M.K. Ramamurthi for the respondent (in all the appeals). SUBBA RAO. J. delivered a dissenting opinion. The Judgment of SHAH, and BACHAWAT JJ. was delivered by SHAH J. Subba Rao, J. I regret my inability to agree with brother Shah, J., on one of the questions raised in the appeals, namely, whether the Land Acquisition Officer can, after making the award under s. 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act, fixing the compensation for the land acquired and apportioning the same among the persons interested in the land, refer the question of apportionment under s. 30 of the Act to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1874; [1965]3SCR550
ORDER34. Following the judgment of the majority, Appeals Nos. 966 and 968 of 1964 are allowed with costs throughout. It is declared that the properties in deed Ext. 11(a) were absolutely dedicated in favour of the deity Sri Gopal Jiu. Suits Nos. 79 & 80 of 1954 will therefore stand dismissed. This will, however, be without prejudice to the concession made on behalf of Nirmala that she was benamidar of her husband Balai in respect of the properties settled by the deed Ext. 11(a). Appeal No. 967 of 1964 is dismissed with costs in favour of Balai....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC115; [1965]57ITR185(SC); [1965]3SCR567
Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh answering the question referred to it under s. 66 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, against the appellant. The question referred to was 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 79,494/- is assessable as capital gains in the assessment year 1948-49.' 2. The facts relevant to the question are as follows. The assessment year in question is 1948-49 and the accounting year is the official year 1947-48. The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, Alapati Venkataramaiah, was the proprietor of Mohan Tile Works, engaged in the manufacture of tiles and bricks and owned the factory buildings, plant and machinery. The assessee entered into an agreement dated March 17, 1948, with one Shri Manthena Venkata Raju agreeing to sell to the Mohan Industries Limited, hereinafter called the Company, the aforesaid factory, plant, machinery, furniture, stocks and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC81; [1965]57ITR349(SC); [1965]3SCR536
1. The facts leading up to this appeal may briefly he narrated. Gujarat Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., hereinafter called "the company". is a limited company having its registered office at Ahmedabad. In the year 1938, the company appointed Messrs. Pira Mal Girdhar Lal and Co., hereinafter called "the agency firm", as its managing agents. On February 28, 1938, a formal agreement was entered into between the company and the agency firm. The said agency firm was formed under an instrument of partnership, dated February 26, 1938, with II partners - 3 of them are compendiously described as the "Bombay group" and the remaining 8 of them as the "Kanpur group". With certain variations in the constitution of the agency firm, the said firm functioned as the managing agents of the company till September, 1946. In September, 1946, the shareholding of the partners of the agency firm in the company was as follows :Kanpur group ... 32,500 shares Bombay group ... 26,362 shares2. Because of certain difference...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1985; [1965]35CompCas741(SC); [1965]3SCR474
Wanchoo, J.1. The only question that arises for determination in this appeal by special leave from the order of the Life Insurance Tribunal, Bombay, is the interpretation of the words 'life insurance fund' as used in paragraph 4 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act, No. 31 of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question arose in connection with the payment of compensation to the respondent, the Crown Life Insurance Company, which is incorporated in Canada, by the appellant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the taking over of the business of the respondent by the appellant under the Act. The respondent claimed Rs. 27,86,658 as compensation while the appellant was prepared to pay Rs. 1,11,466. The respondent claimed that as its life insurance fund was always in deficit before the Act came into force, there was no liability on its under clause(d) of paragraph 4 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Act. The appellant on the other hand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC249; (1967)69BOMLR69; [1966]59ITR73(SC); 1966MhLJ185(SC); [1965]3SCR499
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 600 and 679 of 1964. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated February 20, 1962 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur in Appeals Nos. 196 and 195 of 1956 from original decree. S.G. Patwardhan, S. Murthy and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 600/64). S.N. Kherdekar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant (in, C.A. No. 679/64). A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. S. Gupta, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 600/64). A.V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. S. Gupta for U. P. Singh, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 679/64). The Judgment of Subba Rao, Mudholkar and Ramaswami, JJ. was delivered by Mudholkar J. The dissenting Opinion of Raghubar Dayal and Bachawat, JJ. was delivered by Dayal, J. Mudholkar, J. This judgment will also govern Civil Appeal No. 679 of 1964 since common questions of law arise in both the 'appeals. For illustrating the points which arise for consideration in ,these appeals we will set out briefly the facts p...
Tag this Judgment!