Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1535; [1970]77ITR746(SC); (1970)2SCC29; [1971]1SCR373
J.C. Shah, J.1. By our order dated January 1, 1969, we directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case together with a copy of the deed of gift dated February 3, 1960 executed by the respondent. The Tribunal has submitted the supplementary statement of the case together with a copy of the deed of gift executed by the respondent on February 3, 1960.2. The respondent is a medical practitioner. By the deed dated February 3, 1960 he has given to his son Thomas four items of property : (1) one-fifth share in cardamom estate valued at Rs. 3,030.80; (2) 1.38 cents of garden land valued at Rs. 4,500; (3) G. K. Hospital Building erected on the garden land valued at Rs. 17,250; and (4) Othi rights valued at Rs. 6,000.3. In response to a notice under Section 13(2) of the Gut Tax Act 18 of 1958 the assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1960-61 disclosing taxable gifts of property valued at Rs. 27,251. But he claimed exemption in respect of item ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1712; [1970]77ITR818(SC); (1970)2SCC145; [1971]1SCR377
J.C. Shah, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal submitted the following question under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the High Court of Madras for opinion :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 81,611 and Rs. 1,49,444 were not the part of the accumulated profits of the Company as on December 31, 1954 as contemplated under Section 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax Act of 1922?The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax asked for and obtained a certificate from the High Court only in respect of the amount of Rs. 81,611. This appeal is therefore restricted to the claim of the Revenue that the amount of Rs. 81,611 was not part of the 'accumulated profits of the Company as on October 31, 1954 as contemplated by Section 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.'2. Ajax Products Ltd. was a public limited company incorporated in 1939. It maintained its accounts acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1530; [1970]77ITR512(SC); (1970)2SCC4; [1971]1SCR348
K.S. Hegde, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Madras Bench) referred to the High Court of Madras a statement of case under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court answered one of the questions submitted along with the statement of case in favour of the assessee and the other in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue has not appealed against the decision of the High Court to the extent it went against it but the assessee has brought this appeal by certificate challenging the correctness of the view of the law taken by the High Court on question No. 1 submitted for its opinion.2. The question of law that we have to consider in this appeal is :Whether the creation of a reserve in compliance with Section 17 of the Banking Companies Act is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 10(2) (vi-b), proviso (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.3. The authorities under the Act as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC854; [1970]77ITR539(SC); (1970)2SCC1; [1971]1SCR352
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals by certificate arise out of a common judgment of the Mysore High Court in references made with regard to the assessments relating to the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55.2. For the assessment year 1953-54 the assessee was served with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Income tax Act 1922, hereinafter called the 'Act', on March 5, 1954. A similar notice was served in respect of the assessment year 1954-55 on June 5, 1954. The assessee failed to file any return in compliance with the notices. Thereupon he was served with notices under Section 22(4) for both the assessment years and was required to produce accounts on specified dates. None appeared on any one of those dates but applications were submitted praying for adjournment on certain grounds. The Income tax Officer was not satisfied with the reasons given for seeking adjournments and he proceeded to make the assessment under Section 23(4) of the Act. The assessee moved the Income Tax Officer unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1522; (1970)3SCC79
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution arises from the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In that writ petition, the appellant asked the High Court to,quash the entertainment tax of Rs. 67,500 levied on it for the period from 1-4-1959 to 30-9-1959. The High Court rejected that prayer. 2. The appellant is the owner of 'Veena Cinema' in the town of Patna. As required by the provisions of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948 (Bihar Act XXXV of 1948) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder, for the period 1-4-1959 to 30-9-1959, the appellant submitted a return showing a tax liability of Rs. 36,860. It deposited that amount. But the Additional Superintendent, Commercial Taxes Patna rejected its return and assessed it on the basis of best judgment, and levied a tax of Rs. 67,500 on it for the period in que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1525; (1971)IIMLJ1(SC); (1970)3SCC440; [1971]1SCR364
A.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 21 March, 1966 of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the decree holders application for execution of the decree.2. The appellant is one of the judgment-debtors brought on record as legal representative of a deceased judgment debtor Laia Baijnath Prasad. Respondent No. 1 Lakshman Prasad Gupta was one of the plaintiffs. Pratap Chand and Basudeb Prasad respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively are the sons of a judgment-debtor Girdharial Agarwala.3. The plaintiff respondent Lakshman Prasad Gupta was married to the sister of Laia Bansilal. Bansilal belonged to the joint family which consisted inter alia of the appellant's lather. There were five branches of the said joint family of the judgment-debtors, three whereof were at Banaras, Calcutta and Naini and the other two were the branches of the descendants of Mohanlal and of Lala Baijnath Prasad, father of the appellant, respective...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1531; [1970]77ITR751(SC); (1970)2SCC88; [1971]1SCR357
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals by certificate arise out of a common judgment of the Calcutta High Court in two Income tax References.2. The assessee is a private limited company. It carried on the business of banking and financing as also of managing agency. Starch Products Ltd. was one of the various companies which was 'being managed by the assessee. Starch Products had appointed the U.P. Sales Corporation Ltd. as its selling agent. The assessee claimed to have stood guarantee for a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs which was advanced to the U.P. Sales Corporation Ltd. by the Gwalior Industrial Bank Ltd. The borrower failed to pay the loan which on August 2/1948 stood at Rs. 5,60,199. This amount was paid by the assessee pursuant to the guarantee. Thereafter the assessee treated the U.P. Sales Corporation Ltd. as its debtor for the aforesaid amount. That company went into liquidation and as the assessee could not recover anything from it a sum of Rs. 5,60,199 was written off in the books of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1672; (1970)3SCC869; [1971]27STC118(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the question for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the rebate provided in Section 13(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, as amended by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1962 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Orissa Act') read with Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act').2. The appellant is an incorporated company and it is a registered dealer under the Central Act. The appellant-company was assessed to sales tax under the Central Act for the two quarters ending 31st December, 1962, and 31st March, 1963. During the first quarter its tax liability was Rs. 62,061.86 and during the second quarter its tax liability was Rs. 47,266.21. The tax levied was paid by the assessee within the time fixed under Section 13(4)(d) of the Orissa Act. 3. Section 13(8) of the Orissa Act provides : A rebate of one per centum on the amount of tax payable by a dealer sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1756; (1970)2SCC294; [1970]26STC381(SC)
J.C. Shah, J.1. The appellants are a firm having their head office at Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh and branch offices at Lucknow, Kanpur, Faizabad and Bombay. They are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling bidis, and are registered as dealers under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Between November, 1948, and October 12, 1949, the appellants despatched bidis of the value of Rs. 22,60,241-5-0 to their branch offices outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, and bidis of the value of Rs. 5,35,404-15-0 under instructions from their branches to other destinations outside the State. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the contention of the appellants that the turnover resulting from the sale of bidis supplied to the branches and under instructions from the branches was not liable to be taxed under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and brought the aggregate turnover of Rs. 27,85,646-4-0 to tax. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner reduced the taxable turnover by 5 per cent. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1707; [1971]81ITR310(SC); (1970)2SCC139; [1971]1SCR340
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These companion appeals by certificate under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (in short 'the Act') are directed against the decision of the Madras High Court in a tax reference under Section 66(1) of the Act, relating to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60.2. Messrs. N.V. Shanmugam and Co., a firm, was carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of snuff under a deed of partnership dated April 20, 1955. Its partners were S.P. Ramiah Nadar, Murugavel Nagar and Shanmughavel Nadar. S.P. Mohan, a minor had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership, his share in the net profits being l/6th. The deed of partnership provided that the partnership could not be dissolved before August 31, 1955. But it was open to the partners to continue the partnership or enter into a fresh partnership on fresh terms and conditions. On September 17, 1956, Ramiah Nadar filed a suit in the city Civil Court, Madras for the dissolution of the partnership with effec...
Tag this Judgment!