Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(SC)209
SUHAS C. SEN, J. :The appellant, Miss P. Sarada, is a major shareholder of M/s Universal Radiators (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). It is a company in which public were not substantially interested. While completing the assessment of the appellant for the asst. yr. 1973-74, the ITO found that during the period 3rd July, 1972 to 22nd March, 1973 she had withdrawn a total sum of Rs. 93,027 from the company. The appellant had a running account with the company. At the material time she did not have any credit balance in her account with the company. This excess withdrawal was treated by the ITO as deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act on two grounds : (1) The assessee had no credit balance in her accounts with the said company at the material time; and (2) that there was sufficient accumulated profits of the company from which the excess withdrawal was made by the assessee. The ITO included this amount of Rs. 93,027 in the computation of the appellants income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC762; [1998]229ITR444(SC); JT1998(4)SC460; 1997(7)SCALE510; (1998)1SCC367; [1997]Supp6SCR325
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. The appellant, Miss P. Sarada, is a major shareholder of Messers Universal Radiators Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). It is a company in which public were not substantially interested. While completing the assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 1973-74, the Income Tax Officer found that during the period 3.7.1972 to 22.3.1973 she had withdrawn a total sum of Rs. 93,027 from the company. The appellant had a running account with the company. At the material time she did not have any credit balance in her account with the company. This excess withdrawal was treated by the Income Tax Officer as deemed dividend Under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act on two grounds : (1) The assessee had no credit balance in her accounts with the said company at the material time; and (2) that there was sufficient accumulated profits of the company from which the excess withdrawal was made by the assessee. The Income tax Officer included this amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC839; 1998(59)ECC1; 1998LC761(SC); 1998(97)ELT5(SC); JT1997(9)SC750; 1997(7)SCALE548; (1998)2SCC32; [1997]Supp6SCR345; [1999]114STC387(SC)
Srinivasan, J.1. The common question which arises for decision in these two appeals and Special Leave Petition is whether printing on glass bottles amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act 1944.2. It is convenient to set out the facts in each case separately before considering the aforesaid question.3. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 767 of 1991 have a factory for manufacturing glass and glasswares falling under T.I. 23 of the Central Excise Tariff. Till 1983 they were manufacturing and supplying plain glass bottles to customers. In 1983 they filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Saharanpur enclosing a revised layout of the factory in substitution of the existing plan. Under the revised plan, the premises in which the manufacturing operation of glass and glassware was undertaken was segregated from the premises in which the machinery for printing of glass bottles with ceramic colour was to be installed for car...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR739]; JT1998(4)SC236; (1998)2SCC394
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is preferred against an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2253 of 1991 dated 11.5.1993. The respondent was a basic servant in the District Employment Office, Tiruchirapalli. By an order dated 13.5.1980 he was placed under suspension on account of his misbehavior with his superior officers and on that count charges were framed against him under Rule 17-B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules. After holding a regular departmental enquiry an order of compulsory retirement was passed against the respondent by the disciplinary authority. The departmental appeal and review were not successful. Hence he moved the Tribunal by filing the said OA. The Tribunal was of the view that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the delinquent on account of which he could not place his defence effectively. The Tribunal also thoroughly re appreciated the evidence and found that in the absence of an independent witness to substa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998CriLJ847; (1998)9SCC345
Nanavati, J.1. In view of the consistent evidence of PWs 1 and 2 it was not possible for the learned counsel for the appellant to submit that the view taken by the High Court is unreasonable justifying for interference by this Court. Moreover, when leave was applied for by all the three convicted accused for filing an appeal, this Court did not grant leave to two. The findings recorded against them are now to be regarded as final. It would not be proper now to hold that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 ought not to have been believed. In view of this difficulty, the learned counsel did not seriously challenge the findings recorded by the High Court. Once the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is believed, the conviction of the appellant will have to be confirmed. We, therefore dismiss this appeal.2. The learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that now there is no one in the family of the appellant to look after the daughter of the deceased, i.e., her own grand-daughter, as both her sons are i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1553; 1998CriLJ1563; 1997(4)Crimes407(SC); 1997(7)SCALE629
Nanavati, J.1. The appellant and one Teja Singh were convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1981/Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1981. Their conviction was confirmed by the High Court. Teja Singh and Harpal Singh challenged their conviction by filing separate appeals in this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 1982 filed by Teja Singh abated as a result of his death and, therefore, we are now concerned only with Criminal Appeal No. 71/83 filed by Harpal Singh.2. The case of the prosecution was that Teja Singh had borrowed Rs. 500/- from one Balbir Singh two months before the date of the occurrence. As Teja Singh was not returning the said amount, Balbir Singh, along with Gulab Singh and Gurdev Singh, went to Teja Singh's house for getting back the said amount. They had gone to the house of Teja Singh on 22.11.1980 at about 10 p.m.. From near the gate of his house they shouted for Teja Singh. Teja Singh came out of his house armed with a DBBL. 12 bore gun alo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 86(1998)CLT583(SC); (1998)144CTR(SC)161
SUHAS C. SEN, J. :The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the Orissa High Court under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid by the assessee-firm to Sri Rashiklal P. Rathor (individual) is allowable under S. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961, as a deduction while computing the business income of the assessee.'2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on a number of businesses including sale and purchase of various commodities as well as mining. The partners of the firm were :(1) Popatlal Devram(2) Jayantilal Jagmal(3) Pragji Devram(4) Ratilal Odhavji(5) Rashiklal P. RathorPopatlal is Rashiklals father. On 1st April, 1967, there was an oral partition of the share of Popatlal in the firm amongst Popatlal, his wife and his two sons including Rashiklal. The assets of Rashiklal continued to be invested in the partnership firm. Rashiklal was Karta of a smaller HUF. On 17th October, 1978, there was an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC554; JT1997(9)SC734; (1998)ILLJ389SC; (1998)IIMLJ54(SC); 1997(7)SCALE520; (1998)1SCC650; [1997]Supp6SCR263; 1998(1)LC202(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC68
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. A short but an interesting question arises for consideration in this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India. It reads as under :2. Whether an individual workman governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can claim lay-off - compensation Under Section 25C of the Act despite a settlement arrived at during conciliation proceedings Under Section 12(3) of the Act by a union of which he is not a member and when such settlement seeks to restrict the right of lay-off compensation payable to such workman as per the first proviso to Section 25C of the Act.'3. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings require to be stated at the outset :BACKGROUND FACTS :4. The five appellants before us were employed at the relevant time under Respondent No. 1 in various departments. Respondent No. 1 was running a textile mill wherein the appellants were employed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC4389; [1998]229ITR458(SC); JT1997(10)SC1; (1998)2SCC49; [1997]Supp6SCR331
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the Orissa High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid by the assessee-firm to Sri Rashiklal P. Rathor (individual) is allowable under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as a deduction while computing the business income of the assessee.' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on a number of businesses including sale and purchase of various commodities as well as mining. The partners of the firm were :(1) Popatlal Devram(2) Jayantilal Jagmal(3) Pragji Devram(4) Ratilal Odhayji(5) Rashiklal P. Rathor3. Popatlal is Rashiklal's father. On 1.4.1967, there was an oral partition of the share of Popatlal in the firm amongst Popatlal, his wife and his two sons including Rashiklal. The assets of Rashiklal continued to be invested in the partnership firm. Rashiklal was Karta of a smaller HUF. On 17.10.1978...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC750; JT1997(10)SC70; (1998)IMLJ82(SC); (1998)9SCC286; [1997]Supp6SCR282
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the legal representative of one Dr Devadoss against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Special Tribunal Appeal No. 4 of 1993 dated 21-1-1997 dismissing the appeal of the said Dr Devadoss's legal representative. That was an appeal preferred against the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal (Sub-Court), Thanjavur, in CMA No. 23 of 1985, by which the said Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Asstt. Law Tax Officer) dated 4-5-1985 in T.8.5/EO/PKT/84 (on remand) granting ryotwari patta to the respondent-temple as a landholder under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) (hereinafter called the 1963 Act).3. The dispute relates to the 0.84 cents in S. No. 10/2 and 0.79 cents in S. No. 75, Athaloor Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Thanjavur District. The decision of the Tribunals 4. Before the primary tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!