Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1017; (1971)1SCC349; [1971]3SCR370
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This Appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Mysore High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants and Respondent No. 3 against Respondents 1 and 2, the Market Committee Sirsi and the State of Mysore respectively, by which they challenged the Notification of the Govt. of Mysore No. DPC 203 CMD 64(i) dated 5th January 1965. The Town of Sirsi in the North Canara which was once part of the Bombay State is one of the leading markets for Areca, Cardamom and Pepper. The Appellants have been carrying on business in these 3 commodities on a large scale for. many years in this town mainly in the localities comprising Channapattan Galli, Basti Galli and Nadged Galli, while the Respondent 3 who is a dealer in the said commodities was carrying on business in Nadged Galli. In the Channapattan Galli there are nearly 20 Commission Agents who own shops and godowns who also deal in these commodities. It was stated that the three Gallis constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1015; [1971]79ITR549(SC); (1971)IIMLJ86(SC); (1971)1SCC280; [1971]3SCR365; 1971(III)LC185(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court arising out of a reference made under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the 'Act' of the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the application under Section 26A of the Act was filed out of time.2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated October 6, 1955. It was to come into existence with effect from November 5, 1954. The assessee filed an application under Section 26A of the Act for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1956-57. The 'previous year of the firm was shown as the year ending October 26, 1955. This application was received by the Income-tax Officer on October 14, 1955. On October 20, 1955 the assessee filed before the Registrar of Firms a statement under Section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932. On November 2, 1955 the Registrar of Firms filed the statement of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2277; (1971)3SCC143; [1971]27STC271(SC)
A. N. Grover, J.1. These appeals have been brought by special leave against a common judgment of the Mysore High Court. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a dealer in iron ore. It purchases iron ore from mine-owners in Hospet and sells them to the State Trading Corporation for export to foreign countries. The assessee and the State Trading Corporation are registered as dealers under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act'. According to the agreement between the parties ore was to be transported by rail from Hospet to Hubli and from there by road to Karwar port where it was loaded into ships for transportation to foreign countries. All expenses of transportation from Hospet to the point where the ore was loaded in ships were to be borne by the assessee. The documents relating to transport by rail such as way-bills, railway receipts etc. were made out in the name of the State Trading Corporation. In these documents the ore was shown as consigned by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]79ITR546(SC); (1972)4SCC77; 1971(III)LC183(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. By an agreement dated July 21, 1945, two brothers Dady and Minoo entered into a partnership to carry on the business of wholesale merchants and in foreign liquor in the name and style of 'Jer and Company' at Agra Dady obtained in 1945 a licence from the Excise authorities Under Rule 574 of the U.P. Excise Rules for wholesale vending of foreign liquor. The licence was renewed every year. The licence contained no prohibition against entering into partnership for carrying on the business in foreign liquor by the holder of the licence.2. The partnership was registered Under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 till the assessment year 1957-58 and tax was assessed and levied on the footing that the firm was a registered firm. On applications for renewal filed by the firm for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the Income-tax Officer granted registration, but the order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his power Under Section 33B ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2280; 1981(8)ELT679(SC); (1971)1SCC289; [1971]3SCR357
C.A. VaidialingamJ.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment and order dated August 24, 1966 Of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at New Delhi dismissing in limine Civil Writ No. 666-D of 1966 filed by the appellant to quash the orders of the first and second respondents dated December 7, 1965 and April 23, 1966 respectively.2. The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of the first respondent, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act 32 of 1962) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) was justified. The point lies within a very narrow compass and hence it is not necessary to state elaborately the allegations made against the appellant for taking action under the Act read with the material provisions of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947. The appellant was called upon by the third re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC287
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J.1. This appeal by certificate issued by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland at Gauhati, which involves a pure question of fact, is devoid of any merits.2. The appellant instituted a suit against the first defendant and his son for recovery of a sum of Rs 11,524/11/9, being the value of 1133 tea chests. The first and the second defendants are both dead and the respondents in the appeal herein are their legal representatives. In fact the second defendant son of the first defendant was only a pro forma defendant. According to the plaintiff the first defendant was the Manager of the concern from February 7, 1932 to March 31, 1952 and then he became the Superintendent of the concern from March 31, 1952 to December 1952.3. The case of the appellant was that the first defendant had failed to account for the said quantity of tea chests and that he had delivered them to his son, the second defendant without authority. Therefore, the appellant claimed the value of those tea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2284; [1971]79ITR514(SC); (1971)1SCC333; [1971]3SCR351; 1971(III)LC177(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the following question referred to it under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the 'Act' in the negative and against the assessee :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,24,199/-was deductible from the business income of the assessee either under Section 10(1) or 10(2)(xi) or 10(2)(xv) of the Income tax Act The assessee is a public limited company having its registered office at Calcutta. Its principal business consists of manufacturing aluminium ingots, sheets and such other products from aluminium. There is another company known by the name of Aluminium Laboratories Limited, Montreal, in Canada, hereinafter called the 'Montreal Company', which provided the assessee with technical know-how, engineering services etc. regarding development of a production of the goods: An agreement was entered into on January 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]80ITR26(SC); (1972)4SCC71; 1971(III)LC181(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. M/s. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. carries on the business of selling agent for various companies and in stocks and shares, jute and speculation. In the account year ending August 31, 1951, the company earned a profit of Rs. 59, 91, 721/-in certain jute transactions. In the proceeding for assessment of income under the Income-tax Act 1922 for the assessment year 1952-53, the company claimed that out of the profits received, the amount of Rs. 14,30,561/-was not taxable because the company had acted in purchasing and selling jute as agent of Dalmia Cement Paper Marketing Company Ltd hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as ''D.C.P.M. Ltd'. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, and by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The order was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal The Tribunal found that the claim of the company would not be accepted, because (1) there was no evidence, documentary or otherwise contemporaneous with the transaction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC658; (1971)1SCC274; 1971(III)LC175(SC)
S.M. Shelat, J.1. The 1st respondent is the wife of the appellant and the mother of the 2nd respondent.2. The two respondents obtained a decree for maintenance against the appellant. On the appellant's failure to pay the maintenance provided under the decree, the respondents took out execution proceedings which ended in an order for sale of the appellant's property at which the 1st respondent, who also acted as the guardian of the 2nd respondent, then a minor, because the auction purchaser. The 1st respondent had been previously granted leave by the Court to bid at the said auction sale. The amount of maintenance due till then to the respondents was set off against the purchase price.3. Two applications were then filed by the appellant for setting aside the sale. The reasons urged in the applications were that the decree for maintenance provided separate maintenance for the two respondents, that it was accordingly not a joint decree that the 1st respondent, therefore, could not set off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]81ITR475(SC); 1971(III)LC253(SC)
J.C. Shah, C.J.1. Counsel appearing for the parties are agreed that the point raised by the first question in these appeals was decided by this Court in Jain Brothers and Ors. v Union of India and Ors. : [1970]77ITR107(SC) . The answer to the first question will be in the affirmative.2. The second question raised by the tribunal and submitted before the High Court was in the following terms:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in rejecting the view that the tribunal has a discretion Under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as to whether a penalty should be levied at all.The question raised in somewhat obscure in its import. But we understood that it was the case of the commissioner of Income-tax that if the conditions prescribed by Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act were satisfied, the tribunal must impose a penalty and has no jurisdiction to direct that penalty may not be levied. The High Court in answering this question ob...
Tag this Judgment!