Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v Ogale glass Works 1971 AIR 2577 held that the award of industrial tribunal cannot stand in the way of enforcing the statutory provision cast on the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
In the Supreme Court of India. CIT west Bengal filed appeal before SC against the order of High Court and SC delivered judgement on 27.8.1971. The name of the assessee was Sh. Durga Parshad More.
The expression for the purpose of the business in s. 10(2)(xv) is wider than the expression for the purpose of earning profits. The former covers, not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its assets and property.
Hirday Narain Vs. ITO (Supreme Court) Exercise of power to rectify an error apparent from the record is conferred upon the Income-tax Officer in aid of enforcement of a right. The Income-tax Officer is an officer concerned with assessment and collection of revenue, and the power to rectify the order of assessment conferred upon him to ensure that injustice to the assessee or to the Revenue may be avoided.
Section 132 does not confer any arbitrary authority upon the Revenue Officers. The Commissioner or the Director of Inspection must have, in consequence of information, reason to believe that the statutory conditions for the exercise of the power to order
Expenditure incurred to resist in a civil proceeding the enforcement of a measure-legislative or executive, which imposes restrictions on the carrying on of a business or to obtain a declaration that the measure is invalid would.
For the two accounting periods the assessee, a resident company, incorporated outside India paid -estate duty payable on the death of its certain share holders not domiciled in India and debited the said amounts to revenue in its accounts in ascertaining the profits and gains of its business for the said years.
In a civil suit the respondent obtained a decree against his employer the appellant company for a sum which included com- pensation for wrongful termination of his service, arrears of salary, interest and costs of the suit, and then applied for execution of the decree.
Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO (Supreme Court) The notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO would be illegal and void – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC).
Held, that the Income-tax Officer was justified in exercising his powers under s. 35 and rectifying the mistake. As a result of, the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act, the subsequently inserted proviso must be read as.
