Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]82ITR899(SC); 1971(III)LC856(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 1126 of 71 by special leave arises from the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in a reference Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this appeal is 1955-56, the previous year ending on March 31, 1955.2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are as follows: During the relevant previous year the assessee sold 2500 shares of M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Sons Ltd, which had been purchased by them in three lots 100 shares on 20th May. 1941, 1300 shares on 17th September, 1941 and 100 on 31st March, 1950. The total price paid for these shares was Rs. 2,54, 592/ The entire block of the said shares was sold to M/s. Mugneeram Bangur & Co on March 4, 1945 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The assessee there by suffered a loss of Rs. 1,04,592/-. It claimed that the loss was a trading loss. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee's claim. He opined that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1972(24)FLR264]; 1972LabIC702; (1971)IILLJ491SC; (1973)3SCC626; [1972]1SCR428; 1971(III)LC858(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These are two appeals by Special Leave. Civil Appeal No. 1602 of 1966 is by the Management against the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on a reference made by the Government for categorisation of workers, their fitments, fixation of work load, the demand for increase of Rs. 10/-to be given to every worker over the basic wage, implementation of weightage, dearness allowance, the demand for giving grades and for giving retrospective effect etc. Civil Appeal No. 1603 of 1966 by the Workmen is against the same Award for disallowing the increase of Rs. 10/-and the weightage of Rs. 5/-and also against the fitment of certain categories of workers. The Tribunal held that the financial capacity of the Appellant was not such as to justify an increase of Rs. 10/-to all the workers over the basic wage and dearness allowance. On the same grounds it also disallowed the payment of Rs. 5/-to workmen for implementation of the weightage recommended by the Wage Board for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2439; [1971]82ITR540(SC); 1971(III)LC872(SC)
K.S. Hedge, J.1. These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference Nos 78 and 79 of 1964 on its file. Those were References Under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (which for the sake of brevity will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). The question referred to the High Court seeking its opinion is:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the Deed ot conveyance and the Deed of Settlement the Tribunal is right in holding that the house property being premises No. 46A and 46B, Wellesly Street, Calcutta is not Trust property?2. The circumstances under which that question came to be referred may now be set out.3. The assessment years with which we are concerned in these appeals are 1958-59 and 19596-0, the previous years being the Diwali Samv. 2013-2014 2014-15. In the course of the assessment proceedings relating to those years, the assessee claimed before the Income-tax O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC756; [1974]93ITR603(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is:Whether in the circumstances of the case, in computing 'net wealth' as defined in Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act or in assessing the net value of the assets under Section 7(2) of the said Act, the liability of the Company in respect of gratuity in terms of the Industrial Court Awards for the benefit of its employees in respect of their periods of service upto the valuation date, should be allowed as a deduction.2. The High Court following the decision of this Court in Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Wealth Tax, Bombay : [1967]63ITR470(SC) answered that question in favour of the department. It is not disputed that the said decision governs the facts of this case, but we are asked to have that decision reconsidered by a larger bench in view of the decision of this Court in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen : (1969)ILLJ785SC .3. Metal Box Co. case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1973)2CTR(SC)498
Hegde, J. - These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the High Court of Delhi in a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The controversy in these appeals relate to the assessment of the assessee appellant for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The assessee was taxed as a non resident. The assessee is a company incorporated on January 17, 1945 as a Public Company with its Head Office at Ramganjmandi in the State of Kotah an Indian State at that time. The Maharaja of Kotah granted to the assessee company a monopoly for excavating kacha stone slabs in the Nizamat, Chechat and Tamganjmandi in the State on May 2, 1945. Clauses 18 and 19 of the agreement entered between the Maharaja and the assessee are relevant for the present purposes. Clause 18 says :(i) In consideration of concessions and privileges granted by the grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super-tax and profits Tax, the grantee co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]82ITR896(SC); 1971(III)LC854(SC)
K.S. Hegde. J.1. These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the High Court of Delhi in a reference Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The controversy in these appeals relate to the assessment of the assessee appellant for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The assesses was taxed as a non-resident. The assessee is a company incorporated on January 17, 1945 as a Public Company with its Head Office at Ramganjmandi in the State of Kotah an Indian State at that time The Maharaja of Kotah granted to the assessee company a monopoly for excavating kacha stone slabs in the Nizamat, Chechat and-Ramganjmandi in the State on May 2, 1945. Clauses '8 and 19 of the agreement entered between the Maharaja and the assessee are relevant for the present purposes. Clause 18 says:(i) In consideration of concessions and privileges granted by the grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super-tax and excess Profit Tax, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC787; (1971)3SCC708; [1972]1SCR398; 1971(III)LC848(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. The short question requiring decision in these appeals on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland under Article 132(1) of the Constitution relates to the validity of Section 3 of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act (No. IV of 1953) (hereinafter called the impugned Act), passed by the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District Council (hereinafter called 'the District Council'). The High Court struck down this section as beyond the competence of the District Council and also as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. The facts giving rise to these appeals are not in dispute. It is, however, unnecessary to state them because the question of the Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the impugned Act falls for determination solely on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution without any reference to the facts.2. Part X of the Constitution dealing with the Scheduled and Tribal Areas consists of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC793; (1971)3SCC381; [1972]1SCR408; 1971(III)LC838(SC)
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an Order of the High Court of Bombay dated 24th April, 1969 in Appeal No. 2 of 1967, substantially confirming the order passed by a single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition No. 474 of 1965. The appellants before this Court are the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay and the respondents are the owners of 41 final plots Nos. 106 to 116 and 118 to 147 under the Bombay Town Planning Scheme. Santacruz VI.2. The area under the Town Planning Scheme, with which we are now concerned, originally fell within the municipal limits of the Bandra Municipal Committee. That Committee, by a resolution dated 15th June, 1948, declared its intention to frame a Town Planning Scheme Under Section 9(1) of the Town Planning Act, 1915. Thereafter, the Municipal Committee was abolished and the area of that municipality was absorbed within the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Corporation, which for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC34; [1971]82ITR561(SC); (1971)3SCC364; [1972]1SCR392
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Both these appeals arise from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The first of these two appeals was brought by the appellant Trust on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court under Section 66(A)(2) of the Act. In that certificate all that we find is a bald statement by the High Court that the case is a fit one for appeal to this Court. This Court has ruled that such a certificate is an invalid one and an appeal brought on the strength of such a certificate is not maintainbale. It is for that reason, the appellant filed the Special Leave application No. 2214 of 1971 seeking special leave from this Court to appeal against the very judgment which was the subject matter of the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 1885 of 1968. After hearing the parties, we came to the conclusion that the leave asked for should be granted. That Petition is now number...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC654
A.N. GROVER, J.1. In these appeals this Court by an Order, dated January 21, 1971, directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case on the question whether the proceedings under Section 10-A were started in the course of assessment or reassessment proceedings commenced under Section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, hereinafter called “the Act”.2. The facts set out in the supplementary statement of the case may be recapitulated. M/s Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai hereinafter referred to as the “assessee” is a registered firm carrying on business in piece goods. During the chargeable accounting period July 4, 1943 to June 21, 1944 and June 22, 1944 to July 10, 1945 Gurbux Rai and Harbux Rai (each representing his joint family) were the two partners of the assessee with equal shares. In the proceedings for assessment of tax under the Act for the above two chargeable accounting periods the assessee informed the Tax Officer tha...
Tag this Judgment!