Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 12 June, 1998
In the case of Sardar Baldev Singh v. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 605 (SC), cited by Mr. Usgaocar, the Supreme Court observed (page 615) :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 83 (1.26 seconds)Documents citing
Sardar Baldev Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi & ... on 2 September, 1960
Navnitlal C. Javeri vs K. K. Sen, Appellate Assistant ... on 28 October, 1964
The third point of distinction, and of signi-
ficance, is that no individual shareholder is made liable
for tax on an amount of the undistributed profits in excess
of his proportionate share in those profits. The
shareholder is not thereby prejudiced. His income is
increased by an amount which he could have legitimately got
from the company if the persons in control had acted
reasonably and had retained such profits undistributed as
were necessary for the purposes of the company.
Another objection taken in Baldev Singh's case(1) was about
the constitutionality of s. 23A on the ground that it
purports to tax the shareholders on the income of the
company in which they held shares, especially when it does
not give a right to the shareholders to realise from the
company the dividend which by the order is deemed to have
been paid to them. The section was held to be
constitutionally valid as it was enacted for preventing
evasion of tax in view of the conditions of its
applicability. In the circumstances of the cases covered by
S. 23A, there was a reasonable connection between the amount
deemed to be distributed as dividend and the possible
attempt for evading payment of super tax. The assessee
could not have been prejudiced if the persons in control of
the management of the company had acted reasonably or
actually distributed that amount as profits subsequent to
the order of the Income-tax-Officer.
Navnitlal C. Javeri vs K.K. Sen, Appellate Assistant ... on 30 March, 1962
Advantage of this legal position has been taken by the members of the controlled companies in not declaring the dividend and yet availing themselves of the profits made by the company and thus avoid payment of tax. One of the devices used by the members was to take the profits by way of loan in the name of one of its members holding insignificant number of shares and distribute it amongst themselves. Devices of these kinds used by businessman have been noticed by the Government not only in this country but also of other countries. The Supreme Court in Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax has cited the following passage from Simon's Income-Tax, 2nd edition, volume 3, page 341 :
Plakkad Estate (P.) Ltd. And Ors. vs Agricultural Income-Tax Officer And ... on 13 February, 1980
In order that the law may be valid, the tax proposed to be levied must be within the legislative competence of the Legislature imposing a tax and authorising the collection thereof and, secondly, the tax must be subject to the conditions laid down in Article 13 of the Constitution ."
K.M. Vijayan And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 28 March, 1995
But, the decision on the question was left open as it was done earlier also in Sardar Baldev Singh v. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 605, 615 (SC).
Sri. Annesh, Udupi vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, ... on 23 February, 2023
7.10. Further, I find that a Constitution Bench, in Sardar Baldev
Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1960) 40 ITR 605 (SC),
a pari materia provision, i.e., Section 34 under old Indian Income
Tax Act, 1922 was considered and it was held that A.O. having power
to issue notice should be a particular A.O. having jurisdiction over
Assessee at the time of issue of requisite notice. If notice issued by
any other A.O. or notice is bad for any reason, than such back
assessment would be illegal.
Sardar Surjit Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 21 August, 1962
In Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Sarkar J. said as follows :
D.P. Metals vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2000
(vii) Any provision calculated to check the evasion of tax or make it unprofitable is comprehended in the topic "levy and collection of any tax". [Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1960] 40 ITR 605 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 736].
A. Sanyasi Rao And Anr. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 7 March, 1989
This is what sub-section (4) of section 206C says and we seen on illegality insaying so. It must be remembered that this is an anti-evasion measure. It is a specific provision designed to meet a secifical situations. So long as the assessee trades in or does business in the goods purchased, tax can be levied and in the circumstances it will be levied in the year in which the goods are sold. It is on this principle that section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii) section 12(1B) and section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, were sustained in Balaji's case , and Baldev Singh's case . The reasoning underlying the said judgment is equally relevant here and sustains section 44AC section 206C.
Pilani Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward, ... on 4 March, 1966
Mr. Sen next relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sardar Baldev Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax.