Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs P. Sukumaran on 9 January, 1989

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan on 26 February, 2019

The Capital Gain is by virtue of nomenclature is a tax on transfer of Capital Asset by owner and to the extent of ownership, which Honorable members have agreed during the course of Argument and hearing in Original petition that the charge of Capital Gain on the Applicant is to be to the extent of Appellant share is correct proposition and the same cannot be equated with the collection of Capital Gain Tax from Appellant on behalf of other co-owners of the property which was made clear and noted by writer of the judgement in Log book that the recovery of tax dues of co-members can definitely be carried on by the A.O from Power of Attorney Holder, since he has received money on their behalf in his Account. This proposition was argued, accepted by the members in the open court and Decision quoted and copy of judgement / handed over by the L.R of Honorable Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sukumaran in I.T Appeal No 840/2014, submitted that the Capital Gain cannot be taxed in the hands of Power of Attorney holder, 3 MA No.174/Mum/2018 Appellant on identical facts, neither A.R nor members have distinguished.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prakash Agencies vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 June, 1994

In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sukumaran [1989] 74 STC 185, the first case relied on by the learned counsel, the question before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was whether "Rasna" falls within the meaning of entry 25-P of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Division Bench held that it did not. A perusal of the judgment shows that the case turned on the wording of the entry. To bring "Rasna" within the meaning of that entry it was necessary to show that it was a non-alcoholic drink and beverage bottled or canned and sold under a brand name. Therefore, the said judgment, in our view, does not help the petitioner in any way.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Food Specialities Ltd. on 11 January, 1995

7. We are supported in our above conclusion by the decision of the Kerala High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sukumaran [1989] 74 STC 185, wherein it was held that since the product "Rasna" was only a concentrate and not a liquid, it would not come within the ambit of the expression "drinks" or "beverages" and the decision in Brooke Bond India Limited v. State of Kerala [1992] 84 STC 334 (Ker), where it was held that "instant coffee-chicory powder" sold under the brand name of "Bru", being a powder, could not be treated as drink or beverage for the purpose of sales tax.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

K.O. Angumanickam vs Joint Commissioner-Ii, Office Of The ... on 30 September, 1991

3. On the question whether "nannari" syrup will fall under section 3(1) or section 3(2) of the Act and if it falls under section 3(1) of the Act which of the entries in the First Schedule will apply to the goods reliance was sought to be placed on Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. P. Sukumaran [1989] 74 STC 185 (Ker). That judgment also will not apply to the facts of the present case, because in that case "Rasna" was held to be only a concentrate and not a liquid. It was only a raw material for the preparation of soft drinks and therefore it was held that it would not come within the scope of words "non-alcoholic drinks and beverages, bottled or canned and sold under a brand name". The Joint Commissioner has brought the goods within the entry 91 of the First Schedule to the Act. They therefore quoted the entry 91 as it stood at the relevant time.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - A S Anand - Full Document
1