Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing B. R. Ltd vs V. P. Gupta, C.I.T., Bombay on 3 May, 1978

Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 21 April, 1997

"The learned counsel for the assessee strongly relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 647 (SC), and contends that the decisive test to be applied in this case is the unity of control and not the nature of the lines of business, and that as this case satisfies the test of unity of control, it should be held that the assessee is carrying on the same business though the lines of business carried on by it may be different. But we are of the view that the said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken as laying down that unity of control is the only and sole test to be adopted as contended by the assessee. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court had to consider the efficacy of the two tests, one, unity of control and, the other, the different lines of business, and as between the two tests, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the test of unity of control should prevail over the other test relating to nature and the lines of business. The said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken to have overruled its earlier decisions which laid down the multifarious tests to determine whether the various businesses run by an assessee is one and the same or different and independent business. If unity of control is taken to be the sole and exclusive test, then in all cases where an assessee finances, controls and carries on more than one business, then all businesses will have to naturally be treated as one business, because there is unity of control.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs S/S Ganga Corporation Asbestos Pvt. ... on 23 April, 2014

Coming to the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of Khandelwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. V Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) the Bombay High Court has simply affirmed the order of the Tribunal without considering the decision of the Apex Court and without giving any reason. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such decisions.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 21 April, 1997

"The learned counsel for the assessee strongly relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta, CIT [1978] 113 ITR 647, and contends that the decisive test to be applied in this case is the unity of control and not the nature of the lines of business, and that as this case satisfies the test of unity of control, it should be held that the assessee is carrying on the same business though the lines of business carried on by it may be different. But we are of the view that the said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken as laying down that unity of control is the only and sole test to be adopted as contended by the assessee. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court had to consider the efficacy of the two tests, one, unity of control and, the other, the different lines of business, and as between the two tests, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the test of unity of control should prevail over the other test relating to nature and the lines of business. The said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken to have overruled its earlier decisions which laid down the multifarious tests to determine whether the various businesses run by an assessee is one and the same or different and independent business. If unity of control is taken to be the sole and exclusive test, then in all cases where an assessee finances, controls and carries on more than one business, then all businesses will have to naturally be treated as one business, because there is unity of control.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Blue Mountain Estates And Industries ... on 19 October, 1983

The learned counsel for the assessee strongly relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.R. Ltd. v. Gupta CIT , and contends that the decisive test to be applied in this case is the unity of control and not the nature of the lines of business, and that as this case satisfies the test of unity of control, it should be held that the assessee is carrying on the same business though the lines of business carried on by it may be different. But we are of the view that the said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken as laying down that unity of control is the only and sole test to be adopted as contended by the assessee. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court had to consider the efficacy of the two tests, one, unity of control and, the other, the different lines of business, and as between the two tests, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the test of unity of control should prevail over the other test relating to nature and the lines of business. The said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken to have overruled its earlier decisions which laid down the multifarious tests to determine whether the various businesses run by an assessee is one and the same or different and independent businesses. If unity of control is taken to be the sole and exclusive test, then in all cases where an assessee finances, controls and carries on more than one business, then all businesses will have to naturally be treated as one business, because there is unity of control.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 April, 1997

"The learned counsel for the assessee strongly relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta, CIT [1978] 113 ITR 647, and contends that the decisive test to be applied in this case is the unity of control and not the nature of the lines of business, and that as this case satisfies the test of unity of control, it should be held that the assessee is carrying on the same business though the lines of business carried on by it may be different. But we are of the view that the said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken as laying down that unity of control is the only and sole test to be adopted as contended by the assessee. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court had to consider the efficacy of the two tests, one, unity of control and, the other, the different lines of business, and as between the two tests, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the test of unity of control should prevail over the other test relating to nature and the lines of business. The said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken to have overruled its earlier decisions which laid down the multifarious tests to determine whether the various businesses run by an assessee is one and the same or different and independent business. If unity of control is taken to be the sole and exclusive test, then in all cases where an assessee finances, controls and carries on more than one business, then all businesses will have to naturally be treated as one business, because there is unity of control.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashoke Marketing Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 July, 1993

17. The decision of the Supreme Court in B.R. Ltd. v. V.P. Gupta, CIT [1978] 113 ITR 647 has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case, the question was whether the business of importing and selling goods was distinct and separate from the business of exporting the goods. In that case, the Commissioner of Income-tax while disposing of the assessee's revision application under Section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 had observed that the nature of articles imported was entirely different from the nature of articles exported and the procedure involved in the import and export of articles was also entirely different. The fact that the same capital was employed and the same management looked after the two businesses in the different ventures, would not according to the Commissioner, make the import and export business carried on in different years the same business. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the various decisions already delivered on this aspect, which laid down certain objective tests for finding out the existence of inter-connection, interlacing, interdependence and unity between two or more businesses. Applying these tests, the court observed that the mere circumstances relied upon by the Commissioner showing that there was a distinct and marked difference in the nature of goods dealt in and that the procedure involved in the import of articles from the foreign countries and the export of articles manufactured in India to different foreign countries was entirely different were not by themselves sufficient to establish that the business of impart was not the same business as that of export. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also noted that in that case, it was an admitted fact that there was a common control and common management of the same board of directors of the business of import and export. The court also found that there was common management, common business organisation, common administration, common fund and common place of business for both the export and import businesses and these factors showed that in that case, there was interlacing and interdependence of the various businesses carried on by the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Veecumsee on 13 December, 1983

This court after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT , Standard Refinery and Distillery Ltd. v. CIT , and B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT , held that in all these cases the Supreme Court has proceeded on the basis that unless the business which has been stopped is an integral part of the business which has been continued, the benefit of carry forward of losses or carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation cannot be claimed by an assessee. We have to, therefore, answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kalyani Steels Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 14 March, 1997

The Supreme Court in the case of B.R. Ltd. (supra), has again reiterated that the decisive test for the purpose of ascertaining whether two lines of business constitute same business is unity of control. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that there was common control and common management of the board of directors of the company and consequently, there was dovetailing or interlacing between the two lines of business and consequently, they constituted the same business. In the case before us, there does not appear to be any serious dispute as regards the unity of control. Both the steel and tube divisions were controlled by same board of directors and whole-time managing directors. The entire top management was also the same. We, therefore, find that the test of unity of control is satisfied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kothari And Sons (Agencies) P. Ltd. on 30 March, 1994

was a party, M. N. Chandurkar C.J., after elaborately considering the case-law up to the date, and also after referring to three important judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, CIT v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 632, Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 739 and B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT [1978] 113 ITR 647, observed as follows (at page 529) :
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - R J Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next