Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1114; (1986)88BOMLR344; 1986(1)SCALE633; 1986Supp(1)SCC301; [1986]1SCR961; 1986(2)LC37(SC)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. These appeals which have been filed on the strength of a certificate dated September 14, 1971 granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 133(l)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of India, as it then stood, are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated November 23, 1970 dismissing a batch of Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein challenging the order dated May 23, 1969 passed by the District Magistrate, Poone setting aside the notices of demand of Octroi Duty issued by the appellants to the first respondent-company.2. The first appellant herein is the Cantonment Board, Dehu Road and the second appellant is its Executive Officer. The first respondent is a public limited company manufacturing trailers and water tankers at its factory at Pimpri in the District of Poone. The first respondent had submitted tenders to the Defence Department of the Union of India for the manufacture and supply of trailers and water tankers. Pursuant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1099; 1986(1)SCALE489; (1986)2SCC486; [1986]1SCR939; [1986]62STC381(SC); 1986(2)LC147(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. These appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 339 of 1981 and connected cases delivered on May 25, 1982 holding inter alia that Section 28-B of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax' Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 87 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its powers conferred under the Act, as constitutionally valid and dismissing the Writ Petitions with costs. There are also before us a number of writ petitions presented under Article 32 of the Constitution in which similar contentions are raised. We are disposing of all the appeals and the connected writ petitions by this common judgment. But we are setting out the facts in one set of appeals for purposes of all these cases as the questions involved are mostly legal issues. 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(SC)142; [1986]159ITR85(SC); 1986(1)SCALE471; 1986(Supp)SCC104; [1986]1SCR907; 1986(2)LC128(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals by special leave are from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 4th August, 1972.2. M/s. J.K. Hosiery Factory, Kanpur, the assessee firm herein, originally consisted of Sir Padampat Singhania, L. Lakshmipat Singhania and L. Kailashpat Singhania and one J.P. Agarwal as partners. In January, 1946, the three Singhania brothers appeared to have retired from the firm and in their place the Kamla Town Trust was alleged to have become partner. 3. The revenue challenged this reconstitution of the firm and according to the revenue, the Singhania brothers never retired and the trust never became a partner. Four questions were referred by the Tribunal to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The question No. 4 is the only question canvassed before us and survives for these appeals. The same is as follows: Whether, under the provisions of Section 10(2)(vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(SC)270; [1986]159ITR153(SC)
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J. - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated May 21, 1971, of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.This appeal raises the familiar problem whether there are grounds for reopening a completed assessment but that question arises under rather peculiar circumstances. The assessment year concerned is 1962-63. The assessee/appellant had filed its return in November, 1962, showing an income of Rs. 2,092 as its profit. According to the assessee/appellant a mistake had occurred in the preparation of the return, inasmuch as a profit of Rs. 10,718.46 arising from construction work had been left out from the return. But, it appears that along with the original return, a copy of the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account was filed by the appellant. In the profit and loss account, the profit from the construction work was indicated. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment on November 27, 1963, and it appears from the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1035; (1986)2GLR426(SC); (1986)IILLJ166SC; 1986(1)SCALE456; 1986Supp(1)SCC254; [1986]1SCR926; 1986(3)SLJ221(SC); 1986(2)LC10(SC)
B.C. Ray, J.1. This appeal raises a very short though important question as to the validity and vires of the provisions of Rule 6(4)(i) and Rule 6(4)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment (Amendment Rules) 1979. The relevant rules are quoted hereinbelow: i) Appointment to the post of an Assistant Judge shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court by promotion of a person from amongst such persons comprising of those holding the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and those in the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) whose names have been entered in the Select List referred to in Clause (ii) before they have reached the age of 48 years and continue in that list on the date of appointment; Provided that no person shall be eligible for such appointment unless he has : (a) served for a period of not less than seven years as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) ; orworked on Civil side for a period of not less than three years if he belongs to the cadre ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 62(1986)CLT129(SC); [1986]159ITR78(SC); 1986(1)SCALE446; 1986(Supp)SCC110; [1986]1SCR979; 1986(2)LC132(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals by special leave arise from the decision of the Orissa High Court dated 31st October, 1973 refusing to direct the Tribunal to state a case under Section 256(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) and to refer certain questions said to be questions of law arising out of the appellate order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for determination of the High Court. The assessment year involved was 1962-63. There were proceedings - one appeal was related to an assessment order whereby additions were made to the quantum of income disclosed by the assessee and the other was in respect of imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274(2) of the said Act.2. The questions involved respectively in two applications before the High Court were as follows :S.J.C. No. 116 of 19721. Whether in the absence of proving confirmation letters and Hundis by the assessee, the assessee has discharged his initial onus by pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1849; (1986)52CTR(SC)138
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals by special leave arise from the decision of the Orissa High Court dated 31st October, 1973 refusing to direct the Tribunal to state a case under Section 256(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) and to refer certain questions said to be questions of law arising out of the appellate order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for determination of the High Court. The assessment year involved was 1962-63. There were proceedings -one appeal was related to an assessment order whereby additions were made to the quantum of income disclosed by the assessee and the other was in respect of imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274(2) of the said Act.2. The questions involved respectively in two applications before the High Court were as follows: S.J.C. No. 116 of 19721. Whether in the absence of proving confirmation letters and Hundis by the assessee, the assessee has discharged his initial onus by prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1853; (1986)2GLR1178; [1986]159ITR153a(SC); 1986(1)SCALE465; 1986Supp(1)SCC272; [1986]1SCR916; 1986(2)LC142(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order 21st May, 1971 of the division bench of the Calcutta High Court.2. This appeal raises the familiar problem whether there are grounds for reopening a completed assessment but that question arises under rather peculiar circumstances. The assessment year concerned is 1962-63. The assessee/appellant had filed its return in November, 1962 showing an income of Rs.2,092 as its profit. According to the assessee/appellant, a mistake had occurred in the preparation of the return, inasmuch as the profit of Rs. 10,718.46 arising from construction works had been left out from the return. But it appears that along with the original return, a copy of the Balance-sheet and Profit and Loss Account was filed by the appellant. In the Profit and Loss Account, the profit from construction work was indicated. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment on 27th November, 1963 and it appears from the assessment ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)2CompLJ233(SC); (1986)52CTR(SC)108; [1986]159ITR71(SC); 1986(1)SCALE451; (1986)2SCC418; [1986]1SCR881; 1986(2)LC96(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals are by certificates granted by the High Court of Madras under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. 2. An identical question of law had been referred in respect of four separate tax cases to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as '1922 Act') at the instance of the assessee. The High Court disposed of these appeals by one common judgment. 3 The High Court had to answer the following question : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal, that for the purpose of the computation of capital gain on the sale of the shares in East India Corporation Ltd., Madura Insurance Company Ltd. and Pudukottah Company Private Ltd. the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable, is correct in law4. The High Court answered the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 5. According to the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1922; (1986)2SCC479; [1986]1SCR969; [1986]62STC1(SC); 1986(2)LC108(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1972 of a Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 3464 of 1971. 2. The Division Bench dismissed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant. The appellant was a tanner who had his tannery at Vizianagram and was at the material time a dealer under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as well as the Central Sales Tax, 1956, hereinafter called the 'State Act' and the 'Central Act' respectively. The appellant purchases raw hides and skins in the State of Andhra Pradesh and tan the same. The appellant used mostly to sell such tanned hides in the course of inter-State trade.3. The first respondent i.e. the Commercial Tax Officer, Vizianagram, by his order dated 30th January, 1969 had assessed the appellant's inter-State sales turnover at Rs. 16,23,194.29 and levied a tax of Rs. 48,695.82 under the Central Act. Th...
Tag this Judgment!