Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC344
A.N. GROVER, J.1. These appeals from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court have been brought by certificate under Section 66-A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the “Act” and involve a common question, namely whether the law charges incurred in connection with the proceedings before the Investigation Commission were an allowable deduction in computation of the profits of the business of the assessee.2. The facts in the first batch of appeals i.e. CAs Nos. 1351-1353 of 1968 may be stated. During the Assessment Years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 the assessee, which is a public limited company, spent Rs 3,810, 1,42,377and Rs 2,42,688 for representing its case before the Investigation Commission relating to the past Assessment Years 1941-42 to 1947-48. These expenses which were termed as “general expenses” were claimed by the assessee as deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) or in the alternative under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2145; [1971]82ITR363(SC); (1972)3SCC252; [1972]1SCR277; [1971]28STC672(SC)
A. N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in an Income-tax Reference.2. The assessee who is the appellant is a public limited company doing the business of jute and manufacturing of jute goods. The method of accounting followed by the assessee is the mercantile system. During the assessment year 1955-56 (the previous year ended on 31st December, 1954), the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,49,776/-on account of sales tax determined to be payable by the sales, tax authorities on the sales made by the assessee during the aforesaid previous year. The sequence of dates may be mentioned. The income tax return was filed on 13th January, 1956. The demand notice was served by the Sales Tax authorities on the 21st November 1957. On 9th November, 1959, the assessee filed a revised return claiming the aforesaid deduction. The assessee had taken the order by which the demand for such tax had been created to the higher departmental author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2417; 1973(0)BLJR685; [1972(24)FLR162]; (1971)IILLJ340SC; (1971)2SCC605; [1972]1SCR266
G. K. Mitter, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order of the Patna High Court setting aside the award dated 23rd February, 1962 made by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ranchi and remitting the matter back to him for making a fresh award in accordance with the observations of the High Court.2. The facts are as follows. The first respondent, Bishwanath Prasad, a workman of the appellant, made a complaint in writing to the officer in charge of Nirsa Police station on September 19, 1960 stating inter alia that the members of his Union were being harassed repeatedly by the Management of the company and that the labourers had reported on that day that an Assistant Manager, a Labour Welfare Officer and others had broken open the lock of the room of a worker by the name of Kashi Nath Singh and thrown away his belongings when he was actually on duty. The police were requested to take proper action against the said Assistant Manager. After enquiry the officer in charg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1973(26)FLR388]; (1972)4SCC818
G.K. Mitter, J.1. At our suggestion, the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that it would be in the interests of their orients to bottle the matter. We gave an outline as to what the terms of settlement should contain, and we note that the parties have put in an application for compromise, signed by their respective counsel, in the Court today. 2. In our view, the compromise is in the interests of both the parties except that the certificates referred to in Clause (1) of the application for compromise is to be forwarded to the appellant within two months from today.3. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2434a; [1971]82ITR452(SC); (1971)3SCC543; [1972]1SCR230; 1971(III)LC806(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. It arises from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 83 of 1962 on its file. That Reference was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Bombay. The question of law which was referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Department could disallow a sum of Rs. 1,26,359/-a portion of the managing agency commission paid by the assessee company for the assessment year 1957-58 in computing the income from business of the assessee company.2. The assessee is M/S. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. The concerned assessment year is 1957-58, the corresponding account year ending on 30-9-1956. The assessee is a Limited Company. It carries on business of manufacture of sugar from sugar cane. It owns extensive lands in which sugar cane is grown. The suga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2375; [1971]82ITR460a(SC); (1971)3SCC540; [1972]1SCR225; 1971(III)LC812(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Two questions of law which arise for decision in these appeals are:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of Tribunal was right in holding that the distribution to the assessee of the amount attributable to land acquisition compensation received by the Ukhara Estate Zamindaries Ltd. after 31st March, 1948 was in the hands of the assessee, receipt of dividend within the meaning of Section 2(A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt by the assessee of the amount attributable to selamis realised by the Ukhara Estate Zamindaries Ltd., for grant of long-term leases after 31st March, 1948 was a receipt of income of the assessee and taxable as the income of the assessee from other sources ?2. On both these questions the decision of the authorities under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (in brief the Act) as well as that of the Tribunal was agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC330; 1972LabIC188; (1971)IILLJ407SC; (1971)2SCC617; [1972]1SCR241
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The Appellant is an Electricity Supply Co. and in this Appeal by Special Leave challenges the Award made against it, by the Industrial Tribunal (III) at Allahabad on 15th November 1965. The dispute between the Appellant and its Workmen is one relating to the bonus payable for the year 1960-61. As an amicable settlement could not be arrived at, the State of U.P. by its order dated 24-1-1962 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:Should the employers be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1960-61 If so, at what rate and with what details 2. The case of the Appellant was that after allowing for prior charges no available surplus was left for the payment of bonus to workmen. According to the Company a gross profit of Rs. 6,06,684/-was earned for the year ending 31st March, 1961, but the Tribunal added to it a sum of Rs. 9,949/-as representing extraneous income and consequently computed the gross profit at Rs. 6,16,633/-. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2422; [1972(24)FLR87]; 1971LabIC1401; (1971)IILLJ393SC; (1971)3SCC349; [1972]1SCR202
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1331 of 1966.Appeal by special leave from the order dated January 20, 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 54 of 1966.D. V. Patel and L N. Shroff for the appellant. G. P. Pai, Bhajan Ram Rakhiani and R. K. Khanna, for respondent No. 1.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The question involved in this appeal by special leave from an order of the Bombay High Court rejecting summarily a petition -under Art.227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for examining the legality of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra on July 27, 1965 and published in the Maharashtra Gazette on August 19, 1905 and for quashing the same appears to be one of first impression so far as this Court is concerned.The appellant before e this Court is an institution which came into existence as far back as 1834. It originated in the desire of certain Hindu and Parsee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC444
A.N. Grover and; K.S. Hegde, JJ.1. These are connected appeals brought here on the strength of certificates granted by the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court was requested to give its opinion on three of the questions herein below note :"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 35, 01, 000 constituted income liable to tax under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether it was competent to the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner to invoke the provisions of Section 122 for the assessment of Rs. 35, 01, 000/- when the Income-tax Officer had assessed the amount under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act ?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the receipt of Rs. 35, 01, 000/- was taxable under Section 12-B of the Income-tax Act ?"2. The High Court answered questions Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the Revenue and question No. 3 in favour of the assessee.3. The controversy in this case is as to whether the payment of Rs. 35, 01, 000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2447; [1971]82ITR154(SC); (1972)3SCC222; [1972]1SCR159; 1971(III)LC794(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These appeals arise from the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in a Reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). In that decision, the High Court was requested to give its opinion on two questions of law referred to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Calcutta. Following the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. 53 I.T.R. 478 the High Court answered the second question against the Revenue. That decision has become final. At present we are only concerned with the first question of law referred to the High Court for its opinion. That question reads:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of 8, 54, 948 was deductible in determining the net value of the assets of the assessee's business under Section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act ?2. The assessee is a Sterling Company incorporated in U.K. It carries on business of su...
Tag this Judgment!