Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1377; [1970]78ITR268a(SC)
J.C. Shah, J.1. This appeal is filed with certificate under Section 66-A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in 'Mica Mining'. Under Article 42 of its Articles of Association, remuneration payable to the Managing Director and the Deputy Managing Director of the assessee was fixed at 30% of the annual net profits subject to the minimum of Rs. 5,000/-. In the year of account ending June 30, 1958, the assessee debited an amount of Rupees 66,106/- paid to the Managing Director and the Deputy Managing Director. For the assessment year 1959-60 the Income-tax Officer while computing the taxable income in exercise of his power under Section 10(4-A) of the Income-tax Act allowed only Rs. 54,670/- as remuneration for the Managing Director and the Deputy Managing Director, and disallowed the balance of Rs. 11,436/-. He was of the view that the allowance paid to the two Directors was excessive or unreasonable having regard to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1563; [1970]78ITR50(SC); (1970)2SCC168; [1971]1SCR539
J.C. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is filed with certificate granted by the High Court of Patna under Section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The India Machinery Stores (P) Ltd. is a private company incorporated with the object of taking over the business carried on by the India Machinery and Mills Stores--hereinafter called 'the vendors'. By an agreement dated August 2, 1956, the Company agreed to purchase all the assets of the vendors, goodwill, and the 'book-debts and other liabilities and claims against the Company' as on the date of transfer in consideration of allotment of 260 fully paid-up shares of the Company of -the nominal value of Rs. 2.60.000/-. It was provided by Clause 4 of the agreement :That all assets of the Vendors in respect of all its business shall be taken over at the book value standing in the books of accounts of the vendors as on the 1st August One Thousand Nine Hundred. Fifty-six.3. In a proceeding for assessment to tax for 1958-59, the Income-tax Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1379; [1971]79ITR9(SC); (1970)2SCC777
J.C. Shah, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for opinion to the High Court of Calcutta under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922: Was there any evidence before the Tribunal on which it could hold that the business in dealing with shares was distinct and separate from the business of sugar manufacturing and distillery?The High Court recorded their answer in the affirmative. The assessee appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court under Section 66-A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. At the hearing of the appeal this Court was of the view that the statement of the case was insufficient to determine the question raised. The Court observed: In the present case however it is not possible for us to satisfactorily dispose of this appeal because the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal is incomplete and has omitted to state material facts bearing upon the question referred. For instance, it is not clear as to whether the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)3SCC861; [1972]27STC121(SC)
J.C. Shah, J.1. The High Court has passed an order in substance remanding the case referred for opinion under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, to the Additional Judge (Revisions). The High Court observed : In our opinion the approach adopted by the Additional Judge (Revisions) is erroneous. He should have further found whether the goods had actually been exported from India to Nepal. The assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of Article 286(1)(b) in respect of the turnover in question, if he can further establish that the goods were taken from India across the frontier to Nepal. We answer the question accordingly. In our opinion, the very basis upon which the Additional Judge (Revisions) disposed of the revision application was erroneous ; it will now be open to consider, while disposing of the case in conformity with the judgment of this Court, under Section 11(6) whether the turnover in question comprised goods which had actually been taken across the frontier from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1321; 1970CriLJ1149; (1970)2SCC128; [1971]1SCR564
I.D. Dua, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of a joint trial of the present appellants and Jagdish and Sugriv. All the four accused were convicted by the trial court; the present appellants were sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Jagdish and Sugriv to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. They challenged their conviction by separate appeals to the Allahabad High Court. By means of a common judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellants (Crl. A. No. 2623 of 1968) and allowed that of their co-accused Jagdish and Sugriv (Crl. A. No. 2648 of 1968). The sentence of death imposed on the present appellants under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Lala Hazarilal was confirmed.2. According to the prosecution story Jugdish and Sugriv related to each other as cousins belonged to village Bidrika. They used to harass the poor inhabitants of that village whereas deceased Hazarilal used to espous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1683; (1970)2SCC307; [1971]1SCR546
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 596 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 1, 1964 of the Madras High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 32 of 1963.M. Natesan and R. Gopalakrishnan,, for the appellant. S. C. Manchanda and M. S. Narasimhan, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byVaidialingam J The short question that aries for con- sideration in this appeal, by certificate, is whether a term in a registered lease deed, in and by which the lessee of a vacant piece of land agrees to surrender, on termination of the lease, not only the land but also the super-structure put up by him, for the price agreed to between the parties and provided for in the lease, is "a stipulation made by the tenant in writing registered as to the erection of buildings" so as to attract, in favour of the landlord, the proviso to s.12 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (Madras Act III of 1922) as amended by the Madras City Tenants' Protecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1970]78ITR1(SC); JT1986(1)SC356
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', under Section 26(3A) of the Gift-tax Act,1958. The question referred for the opinion of this Court is : 2. ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of the Gift-tax Act are attracted in respect of the sum of Rs. 70,000 thrown into the hotchpotch of the assessee's joint family by the assessee 3. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this case is 1964-65, the relevant accounting period being the year ended on March 31, 1964. The assessee is sought to be assessed as an individual.4. The facts of the case as could be gathered from the statement of case submitted by the Tribunal are as follows :5. The assessee had thrown into the common stock of his Hindu undivided family his National Defence Bonds of the value of rupees one lakh which was his self-acquired property. His family consisted of himself, his two sons and his wife. The question is wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1318; 1970(0)KLT354(SC); (1970)2SCC298; [1971]1SCR512
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This petition is an off-shoot of the decision of this Court on the Constitutional validity of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, being Act 22 of 1969. By a majority of ten Judges against one, this Court declared the Act to be unConstitutional. The decision of the Court was given on February 10, 1970.2. On February 13, 1970 a meeting was organised by the Blitz National Forum at Vithalbhai Fatel House at Delhi. It was presided over by Mr. Mohan Kumarmanglam, an advocate of this Court. According to the news items published the next day in the Hindustan Times, the Times of India and the Patriot, a number of persons spoke about the Act and the decision of this Court upon it. Among the speakers were Mr. R. K. Khadilkar, Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Mr. A. S. R. Chad, Mr. Kumarmanglam, Mr. Prabhatkar, Mr. S. M. Joshi, M.P., Mr. Bhupesh Gupta M.P. and Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon M.P. These speakers criticised the decision. Mr. R. K....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC2055; [1970]78ITR58(SC); 1970(0)KLT352(SC); (1970)2SCC165; [1971]1SCR535
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals by special leave from a judgment of the Kerala High Court arise out of the assessment of agricultural income of the assessee made under the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950, hereinafter called the 'Act', in respect of the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65.2. For the assessment year 1963-64 the assesses filed a return showing a net agricultural income of Rs. 12,558-76. When the matter came up for hearing before the Agricultural Income tax Officer another statement showing an amount of Rs. 43,250-00 as income from teak trees was filed. The Agricultural Income tax Officer disallowed certain expenses and assessed the income for the year 1963-64 at Rs. 62,021-00. For the assessment year 1964-65 a return was filed declaring a net agricultural income of Rs. 25,733-63. No income was shown from the sale of teak trees. The Agricultural Income tax Officer found that teak trees had been sold for a lump sum of Rs. 76,500-00 out of which Rs. 43,250-00 had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1560; [1970]78ITR45(SC); (1970)2SCC158; [1971]1SCR517
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the Calcutta High Court rendered in a reference made to it by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Calcutta under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the. 'Act'). Alongwith its statement of case, the tribunal submitted two questions to the High Court for its opinion. They are :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 2,55,733/- and Rs. 3,00,332/- receivable by the assessee as arrears of royalty and, rent were assessable as the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1950-51 respectively? and(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- being the surplus derived by the assessee on sale of property was assessable as the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1950-51.2. The facts set out in the statement of the case, in brief are as follows :The assessee M...
Tag this Judgment!