Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)2SCC647; 1972(4)LC62(SC)
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 noted:“(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 1 and 2 in favour of the Revenue and Question 3 in favour of the assessee.3. The controversy in this case is as to whether the payment of Rs 35,01,000 made to the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2479; 1971CriLJ1712; (1972)4SCC219; 1972(4)LC17(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna which upheld the order of conviction passed by the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur against the appellant under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, II of 1947. The High Court, however reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant from two year's rigorous imprisonment to four months rigorous imprisonment on consideration of his old age and the fact of his having subsequently paid up the amount alleged to have been embezzled by him.2. At the time of the offence alleged against him, the appellant was working as an extra departmental agent, Chairaila Post Office in Muzzafarpur District. On December 27, 1960, one Rupen Chaudhary sent from Calcutta a money order for Rs. 100/-to his brother Biseshwar of Jaya village which used to be served by Chairaila Post Office. The money order was never received by the payee, the said Biseshwar. On discovery of tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2372; 1971CriLJ1697; (1971)2SCC654; [1972]1SCR571; 1972(4)LC54(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The appellant and one Bakshi Singh Sunder Singh were accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 respectively in the committal proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Greater Bombay. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay refusing to quash the order of committal passed by the learned Magistrate.2. The facts relevant to this appeal are few and may first be stated.3. On October 31, 1963, one Jivansingh Uttam Singh obtained a British passport bearing No. 183459 at Nairobi. On the strength of that passport he was returning to India with his family. On his way he died on board the ship. According to the prosecution that passport came into the hands of the appellant. Bakshi Singh desired to go to the United Kingdom, but had no passport. The appellant agreed to arrange his journey and also for that purpose to obtain a passport for him.4. The allegation was that the appellant prepared an application for a visa in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]82ITR821(SC); (1972)4SCC394; 1972(4)LC65(SC)
1. Civil Appeal No. 1172 of 1971 is by special leave and Civil Appeal No. 1990 of 1968 is by certificate. These two appeals raise the same question for decision. In a reference under Section 66(2) the Tribunal referred to the High Court of Gujarat the following question :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a material irregularity in the notice issued to the assessee under Section 34 and dated 28th February, 1968 and if so, whether such irregularity vitiated the proceedings taken under the said notice.The High Court answered that question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by that decision, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujrat has brought this appeal.2. The facts of the case as set out in the Statement of case at these :The concerned assessment year is 1949 50, the relevant previous year being S.Y. 2004 ending on November 1, 1948. For that assessment year the assessee was assessed. At the time of that assessment, the assessee p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1971]82ITR824(SC); [1972]1SCR589
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Civil Appeals Nos. 1168-1171 of 71 are by special leave and Civil Appeals Nos. 2376-2379 of 68 are by certificate. These appeals arise from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in certain tax references. In those references the High Court was considering the one question referred to it by the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (in brief 'the Act') and two other questions referred to it by the Tribunal in accordance with the directions given by that Court under Section 66(2) of the Act. The High Court has only answered the question referred to it by the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Act and it has not answered the other two questions as being unnecessary. The question referred under Section 66(i) is:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 met the requirements of the law and whether the Commissioner of Income-tax validly exercised jurisdiction u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1781; (1971)3SCC560; [1972]1SCR577; [1971]28STC690(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Madras. It raises two questions for decision viz. (1) whether the High Court was right in its opinion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was incompetent to enhance the assessment of the assessee, the respondent herein and (2) whether the High Court was justified in holding that the additional exemptions granted by the Tribunal were justified by the evidence on record.2. There is no merit in the second contention. Therefore it will be convenient to dispose it of even before going to the facts of the case. The assessing officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes disallowed the two exemptions asked for by the assessee on the ground that there was interpolation in the relative documents covering the turnover. The Tribunal reversed that finding of those authorities and allowed the exemptions asked for. It appears from the order of the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2384; 1971CriLJ1703; (1971)2SCC672; [1972]1SCR517; 1972(4)LC12(SC)
C.A. Vadialingam, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the validity of the order dated March 2, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Pargana, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 Act No. XIX of 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), directing the detention of the petitioner.2. The impugned order states that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner should be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as provided by Section 3(1) of the Act.3. According to the affidavit in reply of the District Magistrate, he reported Under Section 3(4) of the Act to the State Government on March 3, 1971 regarding the fact of his having passed the order of detention together with the grounds of detentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2577; (1971)IILLJ513SC; (1971)2SCC678; [1972]1SCR525
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, on certificate, by the Union of India and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Maharashtra State, is directed against the judgment and order dated September 17, 1965 of the Bombay High Court allowing Special Civil Application No. 380 of 1964 filed by the respondent company under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing the notice of demand dated May 22, 1963 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.2. The circumstances under which the writ petition was filed by the respondent may be stated: The respondent a limited company having its Head Office at Ogalawadi in Satara District was manufacturing at the relevant time Glassware, Stoves, Lanterns and Enamel wares. It had several Sections in its factory, namely, (1) Glass Manufacturing Section (2) Lantern and Safety Stoves Section (3) Enamel Section (4) General Section and (5) Canteen Section. In or about 1946 the Company had introduced a Provident Fund Scheme for its workers under whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2521; 1971LabIC1495; (1971)IILLJ528SC; (1971)3SCC495; [1972]1SCR553
G.S. Mitter, J.1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of an award of the Industrial Tribunal Allahabad following two references dated 24th January, 1962 by the State of U.P. under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The subject matter of both the references was, whether the employers (the appellants before this Court) should be required to pay bonus to their workmen for the year 1960-61 and if so, at what rate.2. The U.P. Electric Supply Co., Ltd. (the appellants herein) had two electricity undertakings, one at Allahabad and the other at Lucknow. It carried on the business of generation and distribution of electricity under two licences one for Allahabad and the other for Lucknow within the areas specified therein. In pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 12 of the said licences the U.P. Electricity Board compulsorily acquired the said undertakings of the company including the business of generation and distribution of electricity in the areas covered by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)2SCC587; [1972]1SCR548; [1972]29STC114(SC); 1972(4)LC51(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 637 of 1967. The petitioner before the High Court is M/s. Cement Allocation Coordinating Organization, a selling Agent of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. That Organization will be hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'. On February 28, 1967 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Lalgudi wrote to the assessee to show cause why its turnover relating to the price of the packing materials used in packing the Cement sold should not be included in its taxable turnover. The assessee instead of showing cause against that proposal moved the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the assessing authority not to include that turnover in its taxable turnover. The High Court entertained that Writ Petition. It would have been proper if the High Court had directed the assessee to put forward its case before the authorities under the Madras General Sales Tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!