Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC26
I.D. DUA, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court dismissing two separate appeals presented by Ram Dahin Singh and the other five appellants against the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah.2. The prosecution story may now be briefly stated. A little after sunrise on November 4, 1963, Ghurfekan Chamar (PW 1) along with his two sons Mangru (PW 12) and Somaru (PW 14) and also certain women including Rutkaiyan Kewatin, wife of one Kalu Kewat, went to harvest paddy crop standing on a portion of Plot No. 103 which had been sown by him. The harvesting was complete by mid-day. Thereafter the harvested crop was tied in bundles. Four such bundles were carried by Imrit, Doma, Natha and Navami to the Khalihan of Ghurfekan. Doma, Navami and Natha thereafter tied another three bundles and started with them for the Khalihan. They had hardly gone some distance towards the north of Ghurfekan's paddy field when a mob of about 30 or 40...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1586; [1970]77ITR530(SC); (1970)3SCC867
K.S. Hegde J.1.This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Patna in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (in short the Act). At the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Patna Bench) referred the following question of law to the High Court for its opinion.Whether the sum of Rs. 21,911 claimed as stowing expenses is capital expense or revenue expense.2. The High Court answered that question in favour of the assessee. It held that it was a revenue expenditure.3. The facts of this case lie within narrow compass. The assessee M/s. Kirkand Coal Co. is a firm carrying on coal mining business. During the accounting year ending on December 31, 1956, that company spent a sum of Rs. 21,911 for stowing operations. The department of Mines required the assessee to stow certain galleries near the pitmouth as a condition precedent for working the colliery during the accounting year. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1815; [1970]77ITR533(SC); (1970)3SCC333
J.C. Shah, J.1. The appellant is a public limited company incorporated in 1948 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. At the commencement of the year of account 1952-53, the company held Government securities of the value of Rs. 1,93,30,958 and shares of public limited companies of the value of Rs. 64,54,529. During the course of the year the company sold Government securities valued at Rs. 92,50,000 and realized a sum of Rs. 79,78,055.50. The company also purchased Government securities of the value of Rupees 1,00,00,000 and out of those sold securities of the value of Rs. 69,00,000 earning a profit of Rs. 21,024.2. In proceedings for assessment of Income-tax for the assessment year 1953-54, the company claimed allowance for the loss suffered in the sale of the securities. The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. He held that 'it was no part of the business of the company to deal in securities', that the transactions in securities did 'not appear to be a normal business vent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1584; (1971)73BOMLR900; (1970)1SCC791; [1971]1SCR335
A.N. Grover. J.1. This is an appeal from a judgement of the Bombay High Court in the matter of valuation of the premises belonging to the respondent made under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888, hereinafter called 'the Act of 1888'.2. For the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 the rateable valuation of the building was fixed by the Municipal Corporation at Rs. 1,66,410. On April 1, 1958 an additional tax known as educational cess was imposed by the Municipal Corporation at the irate of 11/2% of the rateable value on all properties within its limits. This was done under Section 140 of the Act of 1888. As the landlord became entitled to increase the rent recoverable from the tenant to the extent of the increase in the tax payable to the Corporation under the provisions of Section 10AA of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates 1947 (Act No. LVII of 1947) hereinafter called the Rent Act, the Assessor and Collector of the Corporation served a notice on the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1750; [1970]77ITR543(SC); (1970)2SCC80; [1971]1SCR323
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal is by a certificate under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (which will hereinafter be called 'the Act') issued by the High Court of Calcutta. It arises out of the judgment and order of that High Court dated February 5, 1965 in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Act. In the reference mentioned earlier, two question of law were referred to the High Court for its opinion. They are :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the bonus shares of the face value of Rs. 50,07,500/- should be included in the paid up capital of the assessee within the meaning of that term in pursuance, of Sub-section (1) of the explanation to paragraph (D) of Part II of the Finance Act, 1956 for the relevant assessment year?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the bonus shares in question can be said to have been issued within the meaning of the second proviso to paragraph (D) of Part II of the Finance Act, 1956 to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1575; [1970]76ITR719(SC)
K.S. Hegde J.1. These appeals by certificate arise from the decision given by the High Court of Calcutta in five references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Calcutta under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court has answered the questions referred to it in favour of the assessee. In support of the return made by him, the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family carrying on business in various items including money lending produced his account books. The Income-tax Officer rejected those accounts as unreliable and assessed the assessee on the basis of best judgment by adding to the income returned by him various sums ranging from Rs. 17,951 for the assessment year 1956-57, to Rs. 21,536 for the assessment year 1954-55. The five assessment years with which we are concerned in this case are 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Income-tax Officer in his order did not give any reason for not relying on the accounts submitted. On appeal,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC866
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. These appeals by certificate arise from the decision given by the High Court of Calcutta in five references made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “B”, Calcutta under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The High Court has answered the questions referred to it in favour of the assessee. In support of the return made by him, the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family carrying on business in various items including moneylending produced his account books. The Income Tax Officer rejected those accounts as unreliable and assessed the assessee on the basis of best judgment by adding to the income returned by him various sums ranging from Rs 17,951 for Assessment Year 1956-57, to Rs 21,536 for Assessment Year 1954-55. The five assessment years with which we are concerned in this case are 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Income Tax Officer in his order did not give any reason for not relying on the accounts submitted. On appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)2SCC10
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. These appeals were brought on the strength of the certificates granted by the High Court of Calcutta against its judgment in references under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called “the Act”).The questions referred to the High Court are:“(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of three deeds executed on 3rd November, 1944, 25th September, 1947 and 17th March, 1951, referred to in the order, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was only one beneficiary viz. Sri Iswar Gopal Jew, under the trust?(2) If the answer to the question (1) be in the negative, then whether the income of the trust was to be assessed at the maximum rate by virtue of the first proviso to Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?”2. The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative and in view of that answer, it did not find it necessary to answer the second question.3. The fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1732; [1970]77ITR350(SC); [1971]1SCR312
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These appeals were brought on the strength of the certificates granted by the High Court of Calcutta against its judgment in references under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The questions referred to the High Court are :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of three deeds executed on the 3rd November, 1944, the 25th September 1947 and the 17th March, 1951, referred to in the order, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was only one beneficiary viz. Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jew, under the trust ?(2) If the answer to the question (1) be in the negative, then whether the income of the Trust was to be assessed at the maximum rate by virtue of the first proviso to Section 41(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1922?3. The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative and in view of that answer, it did not find it necessary to answer the second question.4. The facts foun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1520; [1970]77ITR6(SC); (1970)1SCC795; [1971]1SCR304
J.C. Shah, J.1. In proceedings for determination of wealth tax for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 the appellant Company claimed depreciation allowance on plant, building and machinery at the rates prescribed under the Income Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Wealth Tax Officer adopted the method prescribed by Section 7 Sub-section (2) of the Wealth Tax Act and' admitted the value of the assets as shown in the certified balance sheets on the respective valuation dates. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax confirmed the order passed by the Wealth Tax Officer. The Company then moved revision applications before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax rejecting the applications, the Company has filed these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner appeals lay to the Income-tax Appellate Trib...
Tag this Judgment!