Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1973)2CTR(SC)30
Mathew, J. - The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, praying for issue of a writ or order quashing a notice dated September 15, 1962, issued by the second respondent the Dhrangadhra Municipality demanding octroi to the tune of Rs. 58,000/-and for restraining the respondent from recovering the amount from the appellant in pursuance of the notice. The High Court dismissed the petition and this appeal, by certificate, is from that order.2. The appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act and carries on business of manufacturing soda ash at its factory Dhrangadhra. The Bombay District Municipalities Act, 1901, hereinafter called the Act was extended to the merged territories of Saurashtra including the area of Dhrangadhra Municipality from July 1, 1949, by an ordinance of the Saurashtra State. Thereafter, the Governor of Maharashtra issued Ordinance No. 47, date August 27, 1949 called the Saurashtra Terminal Tax and Octroi, Ordinance,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC55; 1973CriLJ159; (1973)3SCC219; 1973(5)LC163(SC)
Shelat, J.1. Six persons stood their trial before the Sessions Judge, Sangli, the appellant on the charge of murder of one Rukhamabai and the rest under Section 201 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for causing the evidence of the said murder to disappear by burning her dead body in survey No. 178 of village arandi. Of these persons, the appellant, hereinafter referred to as accused 1 and accused 2 and 4 are the sons of accused 5, and accused 6 is his wife. The victim was the widow of one Dhondi Mohite, the nephew of accused 5, who after the death of her husband was living with accused 5. The relations between the deceased and the accused were, it was said, normal on the whole, but during the past year before the alleged murder, accused 5 was insisting upon the deceased either transferring a piece of land standing in her name in favour of the accused, or adopting one of his sons. The motive for the crime alleged by the prosecution was the refusal of the accused to follow either of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1973)2CTR(SC)1
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - This appeal is by certificate and though no reasons have been given for the grant of it the learned advocate for the respondent does not contest that a question of law does not arise and has not objected to the certificate. The question that was referred to the High Court by the Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1.22 (hereinafter called Act) is as follows :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the matter of calculation of undistributed balance of the total income of an assessee for the purpose of levy of super-Tax in terms of sec. 23-A (1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1922, the Income-Tax officer should have taken into consideration dividend declared by the period of 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 but before the date on which the orders under sec. 23-A (1) had been made by the Income-tax Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2469; [1972]86ITR436(SC); (1972)2SCC854; [1973]2SCR372
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate and though no reasons have been given for the grant of it, the learned advocate for the respondent does not contest that a question of law does arise and has not objected to the certificate. The question that was referred to the High Court by the Tribunal Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1922 (hereinafter called the 'Act') is as follows :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the matter of calculation of undistributed balance of the total income of an assessee for the purpose of levy of super-tax in terms of Section 23-A(l) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income tax Officer should have taken into consideration dividend declared by the company after the period of 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 but before the date on which the orders Under Section 23-A(1) had been mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC22; [1972]86ITR557(SC); (1973)3SCC207; [1973]2SCR389
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This judgment would dispose of four civil appeals Nos. 1447 to 1450 of 1969 which have been filed by the assesses by special leave against the judgment of Gujarat High Court whereby that court answered the following two questions in a reference Under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the affirmative and in favour of the department:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were properly commenced in the course of any proceedings under the Act as required by Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income as required by Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2450; [1973]87ITR395(SC); (1973)3SCC168
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal by. special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in a Reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to Be hereinafter referred to as the Act)2. The material facts of the ease as could be gathered from the statement of the case may now be stated: One Sankunni belonging to the Ezhava community of South Malabar had five sons by name Kannan Kunhi, Chathunni, Velayudhan, Pappu and Ramakrishan. Kannan Kunhi is the eldest son. He was a permanent resident of Ceylon. He had a business in toddy in Ceylon in partnership with others. On August 17, 1950, a business in toddy was started in Kerala. The licence for this business was in the name of Kannan Kunhi. On the same day there was a credit entry in the books of account for the toddy business for a sum of Rs. 46,563/-. This business was managed by Chathunni. The assessee was a H.U.F. The assessee purchased an item of property on May 19, 1950 for a sum of Rupees 14,250/- and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC15; [1972]86ITR647(SC); (1973)3SCC257; [1973]2SCR360; 1972()WLN720
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by special leave against. the judgment of the High. Court of Rajasthan in an income-tax reference Under Section 66(1) by which it answered the two questions referred to it in the negative. Before this appeal was filed, Appeal No. 1238/1969 had been filed on a certificate but that is dismissed without costs because this Court had in several cases held that in Income-tax references if the High Court does not give any reasons while granting the certificate, the certificate can be revoked. 2. The assessee, a firm carrying on mining business at Udaipur with a branch at Mandal, had pursuant to an invitation to tender for mica mining in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, tendered for certain areas for Rs. 1,57,150/- of which Rs. 3,360/- was payable towards the mica scrap lying on the surface. The lease was for 20 years and the areas which were offered had been worked by other private companies for 15 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1395; 1973CriLJ335; (1973)3SCC312
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. In this appeal by social leave the only question that arises is whether on the facts of this case the conviction of the appellants should have been maintained on the basis of the dying declaration alone. In order to determine this question it is necessary to state the relevant facts.2. The two appellants. Mohd. Ekrarnul and Jethan Mahato were tried along with six others before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. First Court. Monshvr on charges under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149. I.P.C. for the murder of one Doraan Mahato of village Lohara within Jamui Police Station. Mohd. Ekrarnul. alone with two others, were further charged under Section 302 read with Section 34. I.P.C. The Trial court acquitted the six co-accused, in respect of all the chaws against them and also acquitted Ekrarnul in respect of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34. I.P.C. The Trial Court however, convicted the two appellants under Sections 148 and 302 read with Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC165; 1973CriLJ235; 1973MhLJ144(SC); (1973)4SCC23; [1973]2SCR377
I.D. Dua, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding on appeal the appellant's conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Bombay Under Section 304A, IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default further, rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. According to the presecution, on July 2, 1967, at about 4.15 p.m. the appellant was driving a B.R.S.T. motor bus bearing No. BHQ 1019 along the southern side of Tilak Road from east to west. When the bus suddenly mounted the southern footpath and dashed against an electric pole felling it fell-down, the bus stopped. A person who was near the electric pole was knocked down dead as a result of the electric pole falling on him. His right hand was severed, his head crushed with the brain matter sticking on to the wall near the electric pole. It was a double decker bus. One Harbansing Ramsingh (called...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC997; [1973]87ITR370(SC); (1973)3SCC824; [1973]2SCR334
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These appeals are by he Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa, against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in references Under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 'Act') which answered the questions referred to it in favour of the assessee and against the appellant.2. We shall presently set out the questions called for by the High Court, but before we do so, it is necessary to state the facts on which those questions have to be determined.3. The assessee is an individual having income from salary, interest on securities, rents from house properties, dividends etc. In the year 1954-55 for which the previous year is 1st November 1952 to 31st October, 1953, the assessee filed a return on 28th February 1955 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,60,737/-. On 24th February 1958 a revised return was filed including therein property income amounting to Rs. 550/-. The Income Tax Officer completed the assessment on 30th September, 19...
Tag this Judgment!