Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1972]83ITR335(SC)
The judgment of the court was delivered byHEGDE J. - The writ petition filed by the appellants was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. While dismissing the write petition the learned judges gave a speaking order. Against that decision this appeal has been brought by certificate. After some discussion the counsel for the appellant sought the permission of the court to withdraw the writ petition in the peculiar circumstances of the case. This writ petition is primarily directed against certain communication sent by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated the 18th March, 1970, and 25th July, 1970, respectively to the appellants. We were informed by the counsel for both the parties that the decisions conveyed in those communications were not made in exercise of any of the powers conferred on the Board by any law. They were merely replies to the communications sent by the appellants. They cannot be even considered as directions under section 119 of the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1973]83ITR335(SC); (1972)4SCC689; 1972(4)LC220(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The Writ Petition Bled by the Appellants was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. While dismissing the Writ Petition the Learned Judges gave a speaking order. Against that decision this appeal has been brought by certificate. After some discussion the counsel for the appellant sought the permission of the court to withdraw the Writ Petition in the peculiar circumstances of the case. This Writ Petition is primarily directed against certain communications sent by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated the 18th March, 1970, 25th July, 1970 respectively to the appellants. We were informed by the counsel for both the parties that the decisions conveyed in those communications were not made in exercise of any of the powers conferred on the Board by any law. They were merely replied to the communications sent by the appellants. They cannot be even considered as directions under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. as they pertain to decisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1972LabIC1256; (1971)IILLJ657SC; (1972)4SCC222
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These three appeals, by special leave, are directed against the award dated July 22, 1966 of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, directing the appellant-company to pay two months' wages or l/3rd of the available surplus, whichever is higher, as additional bonus for the years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59.2. The reference in respect of the year 1956-57 was made on November 17, 1958, and numbered as Case No. 226 of 1958. The reference in respect of the year 1957-58 was made on July 23, 1959 and numbered as Case No. 124 of 1959. Similarly, the reference in respect of the year 1958-59 was made on August 25, 1960 and numbered as Case No. 421 of I960. All the references were dealt with together.3. In consequence the questions that the Tribunal had to consider were:(1) Whether the workmen are entitled to any additional bonus for the year ended 30th June, 1957.(2) Whether the workers are entitled to any additional bonus for the year ended 30th June, 1958 in exces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1972]85ITR115(SC); 1972(4)LC435(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1949-50 the assessee received among other dividends, dividend amounting to Rs. 3127/-from Ukhra Estate Zamindaries Ltd., and while submitting his return of income, claimed that these dividends were not taxable because they came out of the funds of the company which were not in any sense taxable profits. Before the actual assessment was made, the assessee went on giving slightly different explanations about the source of the funds from which dividends were declared, but his main contention was that the said dividends had been distributed by the company out of its capital gains which arose to the company after 31st March, 1948 and that dividends under Section 2(6A) did not include any distribution by the company of capital gains arising after 31st March, 1948. The Income-tax Officer thought that the assessee was varying his explanations from time to time about the source of the company from which the dividends wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1973]92ITR569(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court.2. M/s. Khaitan Apte & Co. were assessed to excess profits tax by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Rajahmundry in a sum of Rs. 4,36,554-10-6 in respect of the accounting periods ending March, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946. The said firm appealed against the said order of the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. In appeal, the order of the Excess Profits Tax Officer was reversed. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the firm was not liable to pay any excess profits tax. This order of the appellate authority was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, After the assessment order was made, the two partners of M/s. Khaitan Apte & Co., namely, V.S. Apte and Karundia died. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, the Excess Profits Tax Officer took proceedings for recovery of the tax assessed. L.V. Apte, son of V.S. Apte, deposited on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2048; [1972]83ITR729(SC); (1972)74PLR232; (1972)4SCC15; [1972]1SCR916
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These two appeals, on certificate, by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) New Delhi, are directed against the common judgment and order dated February 21, 1967 in Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1961. The reference related to the assessment years 1942-43 and 1943-44. The question of law, referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter 'to be referred to as the Act) was as follows:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the profits and gains in respect of the sales to the Government of India, were received by the assessee in the taxable territories.2. The High Court answered the said question in favour of the assessee as follows:On the facts and circumstances of the case, the profits and gains in respect of the sales, made to the Government of India, must be deemed to have been received by the assessee outside the taxable territories.3. When Mr. R.R. Dhebar, learned Counsel for the Reve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1640; (1971)3SCC697; [1972]1SCR896; 1972(4)LC170(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by Special leave against the summary rejection of the Letters Patent appeal challenging the Judgment of a Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant was an Assistant Grade Clerk in the Police Department in the State of Punjab prior to its Reorganisation. Respondent 4 was also occupying a similar post in the Patiala & East Punjab States Union (hereinafter called 'Pepsu') as Head Assistant which was equivalent to the post of an Assistant. At the time of the States reorganisation a provisional list of the persons in this service was prepared and published in 1957 in which the 4th Respondent was given 36th place while 5 others namely Prakash Chand, Jaswant Singh, Gurcharan Dass Vaid (the Appellant), Santokh Singh and Hem Raj were given 17th 18 th, 19th, 20th and 21st place respectively. Respondent 4 appealed to the Govt. of India which under the States reorganisation Act 1956 was the competent authority to determine this question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1684; [1972]86ITR44b(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These ton appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common judgment and order dated March 14, 1967 of the Delhi High Court declining to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, to refer along with the statement of case, questions Nos. 1 to 3 enumerated in. their applications.2. The reference was asked for by the three different Companies by whom the above appeals are filed in respect of Income-tax Case No. 20-D of 1965 connected with I.T.C. Nos. 21-D to 29-D of 1965 arising from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. Bench. As the facts in the case and questions of law sought to be referred were common, the following tabular statement will give an idea of the appeals filed by the three Companies, who are the appellants together with the particulars regarding the years of assessment and Income-tax case numbers:C.A. No. I.T.G. No. Assessment Name of Company year 1864/67 28-D/85 1952-53 Basti Sugar Mills 1S65/67 27-D/65 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1972]83ITR339(SC); (1972)4SCC298; [1972]1SCR908
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The High Court of Mysore in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act') had held against the Revenue on the question : (1) whether in the circumstances of the case the refund granted by Income Tax Officer under Section 48 of the Mysore Income Tax, Act 1923 (hereinafter called 'the Mysore Act') amounted to an assessment and, (2) whether the interpretation placed by the Income Tax Tribunal on the words 'such income profits and gains' in paragraph 5(1) of the Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Order') is correct? On the first question its answer was in the affirmative and on the second in the negative. Against this Judgment two appeals have been filed by special leave by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore.2. The facts which gave rise to the reference before the High Court are that a registered firm of partnership known as C.M. Jaffar Khan & Co., Bangalore of which the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1684a; [1972]86ITR44(SC); (1971)3SCC676; [1972]1SCR887; 1972(4)LC438(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These ten appeals, by special leave, are directed against 'the common judgment and order dated March 14, 1967 of the Delhi High Court declining to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, to refer along with the statement of case, questions Nos. 1 to 3 enumerated in their applications.2. The reference was asked for by the three different Companies by whom the above appeals are filed in respect of Income-tax Case No. 20-D of 1965 connected with I.T.C. Nos. 21-D to 29-D of 1965 arising from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench. As the facts in the case and questions of law sought to be referred were common, the following tabular statement will give an idea of the appeals filed by the three Companies, who are the appellants together with the particulars regarding the years of assessment and Income-tax case numbers:_______________________________________________________________ C.A. No. I.T.C. No. Assessment Name of Company ...
Tag this Judgment!