Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]82ITR628(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Civil Appeals Nos. 1956-57 of 1969 by certificates have become infructuous as the certificates on the strength of which those appeals were brought were not properly issued. To get over that difficulty, the Commissioner of Income-tax applied for and obtained special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland. The appeals filed on the basis of the special leave granted are Civil Appeals Nos. 1426 and 1427 of 1971. At present we are only concerned with those appeals.2. The judgment under appeal is,one rendered in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter called the Act). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal after stating the case referred the following six questions for the opinion of the High Court:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and upon a true interpretation of the provisions of the Second proviso to Section 34(3), the assessment for 'the year 1955-56 on the applican...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC132; [1972]83ITR369(SC); (1971)3SCC555; [1972]1SCR846
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, is against the judgment and order dated October 3, 1966 of the High Court of, Mysore, rejecting the appellant's application filed under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Madras Bench to refer the question of law to the High Court.2. The question of law, which the appellant wanted to be referred was:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 35,000 levied under Section 28(1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.3. The respondent was a firm carrying on business of manufacturing silk, carbon papers, type-writer ribbons, liquor, spirituous drugs and chemicals etc. In respect of the assessment year 1955-56, the respondent had sent a return showing Rs. 51,214 as taxable income. On looking into the accounts and other re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ620SC; (1972)4SCC746
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated January 17, 1966 of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, in Civil Rule No. 201 of 1965 quashing the award dated March 3, 1965 of the Labour Court of Assam in Reference No. 98 of 1961, in and by which the Labour Court had set aside the order dated April 19, 1960 of the management terminating the services of the workman B.N. Thakur.2. The workman was employed as the head godown clerk in the first respondent's engineering godown in Sadar office. He was mainly responsible for receipts and issue of stores from the engineering godown of the company; and, according to the management, he was holding a position of trust and responsibility. On March 12, 1960 the manager of Rungagora Tea Estate had sent a lorry to Sadar office to collect certain stores for the garden. The said lorry was being driven by a garden lorry driver Jamiruddin. When the driver was collecting stores from the engineering...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC364
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J.1. The High Court agreeing with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Navanagar Transport & Industries Limited v. ITO, Special Investigation Circle-A, Ahmedabad1 allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed the assessment proceedings on the ground that they are barred by time under Section 34(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.2. The decision of the Gujarat High Court was taken up in appeal to this Court and the same was reversed. The decision of this Court is reported in M.M. Parikh, Income Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle-B, Ahmedabad v. Navanagar Transport & Industries Ltd.2.3. It follows that the judgment and order of the Mysore High Court cannot be sustained and they are set aside. The appeal is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC23; [1972]83ITR403(SC); (1972)4SCC323; [1972]1SCR817
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Kerala High Court in a reference made under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', relating to the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee was the sole proprietor of the business run under the name and style of Travancore Timbers and Products at Kottayam. He converted the proprietary business into a partnership business by means of a deed of partnership dated August 1, 1963. The partnership consisted of the assessee and his two daughters. The capital of the partnership was to be Rs. 4,00,000/-. The assessee contributed Rs. 3,50,000/-and each of his two daughters, one of whom was married and the other unmarried, contributed Rs. 25,000/-. The contribution of the capital by the daughters was effected by transfer of Rs. 25,000/-from the assessee's account to the account of each of the daughters. All the assets of the proprietary business were transferred to the partnership. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2474; 1971CriLJ1708; (1972)4SCC150; 1972(4)LC57(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The appellant was, since 1945, serving as an assistant goods clerk at various railway stations on the Eastern Railway. He did so till January 1963 when he was suspended from service. The last two railway stations where he served were Buxar and Patna Junction between 1957 to 1963.2. He was tried by the Special Judge, Patna under Section 5(i) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2 of 1947, the charge being that while working as an assistant goods clerk at Buxar and Patna between April 1956 and March 1959 he was habitually accepting and obtained or agreeing to accept or demanding illegal gratification and also for misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as contemplated by Sub-section 3 of the section. His defence was that he was falsely involved in the charge by the traders who presented his strictness against transgression of the railway rule and by trade union rivals in league with the investigating officer. He a denied that he acquire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC38; (1972)4SCC347; [1972]1SCR828; [1971]28STC702(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a reference under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1959. The reference was made by the Board of Revenue. After stating the case, the Board of Revenue referred the following question to the High Court for its opinion.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Sales Tax acted illegally in exercising his powers of revision under Section 39(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 in respect of the assessment order dated 28-12-1961 which was passed in respect of the returns submitted on 30-1-1958 and 17-6-1958 and on the basis of the notice in form XI issued on 29-8-1961 ?2. The High Court answered that question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by that order, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh has come up in appeal to this Court.3. The assessee, M/s. Amarnath Ajitkumar was a registered dealer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1279; (1972)4SCC1; 1972(4)LC84(SC)
1. These are appeals by the plaintiffs on a certificate granted by the High Court of Mysore which, in Regular Appeals Nos. 120 & 121 of 1956, modified the decree of the learned District Judge, Mysore in Original Suit No, 4 of 1954. The suit was originally filed by one Nagappa Setty in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, on 29th March, 1948. It was then numbered as Original Suit No. 61 of 1947-48 Nagappa Setty died on 20th February, 1949. His heirs and legal representatives were brought on record and they prosecuted the suit and the appeals. For administrative reasons, the suit was transferred to the file of the Distt. Judge. Mysore in 1954 & there it was re-numbered as O.S No. 4/1954. That Court only partially decreed the plaintiffs' claims. Aggrieved by that decree both sides went in appeal to the High Court of Mysore. These appeals were R.A. Nos. 120 and 121 of 1966. A Division Bench of the High Court heard these appeals together and, by a common judgment, modified the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1612; 1973(0)BLJR175; (1971)3SCC488; [1972]1SCR836; 1972(4)LC158(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The appellant in this appeal, by special leave, has argued his case in person and attacks the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated January 21, 1969 reversing the decrees of the two Subordinate Courts.2. The facts leading upto this appeal may be briefly stated: The respondent, who is the landlord, under whom the appellant is a tenant, obtained an exparte decree on March 9, 1957 in suit No. 74 of 1956 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Kanpur. The decree was not only for eviction, but also for payment of rent or damages and mesne profits, as well as costs.3. The appellant pleaded that there was a compromise entered into between him and the respondent in and by which the manner of extinguishment of the decree was arrived at. That compromise, according to the appellant, was entered into on July 25, 1957. The terms of the compromise have been incorporated in the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated March 27,1961 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 688 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2414; 1971LabIC1393; (1971)IILLJ615SC; (1972)4SCC569
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This Appeal by Special Leave concerns the termination of the services of Nayan Singh a Durwan in the Appellant Company. This raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred by the Government to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Company was not justified in dismissing him and directed that it should reinstate him and pay his back-wages from the date of his dismissal. Apart from Nayan Singh, who used to sleep in the show room, there was another Durwan Basunandan Singh who used to be on day duty in the said show room and sleep in the night in the godown of the Company. On the early morning of 11-9-65 Basunandan Singh was on his way to the Ganges to take a bath and before he went there he wanted to go to the show room for easing himself. When he came to the show room he found the gate of the backside of the premises which had the show room closed. While he was standing in front of the gate he noticed a man coming out of the show room with a tin container i...
Tag this Judgment!