Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing J.K. Trust, Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... on 10 September, 1957

Jharkhand Education Project Council ... vs M/S. National Printer Proprietor Apex on 23 April, 2019

Learned senior counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Bombay High 8 Court rendered in the case of J.K. Trust, Bombay Vs. Commr. of Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City reported in AIR 1953 Bombay 232, Para-9 and also in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others reported in 1992 Suppl (1). SCC 21, paras-23 and 24 and submitted that the State Government or the JEPC cannot suffer the writ petitioner for their own fault.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Bose - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority on 19 October, 2022

162. It seems that the test applied in J.K. Trust (supra) that for a business, to be considered as property held under trust, it should have been either acquired with the help of the fund originally settled upon trust or the original fund settled upon trust must have a proximate connection with the later acquisition or carrying on of the business by the trustees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 231 - Cited by 31 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And ... vs Shri Dipak Dhar And Ors. on 14 August, 1984

Let a copy of that notification as produced be kept in the record. It should be noted that the present imposition of tax has been made effective from 1st May, 1984. It was Mr. Gooptu's further and specific contentions that lottery ticket is not an actionable claim and according to him the definition of "goods" under the said Act is inclusive and not exhaustive. The reference as made by him to the cases reported in A.V. Meiyappan v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue, Madras [1967] 20 STC 116 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board [1970] 26 STC 188 (SC) have been mentioned hereinbefore and apart from them he also referred to the case of J.K. Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-taxi Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [1957] 32 ITR 636 (SC), where it has been observed that "property" is a term of the widest import, and subject to any limitation or qualification which the context might require, it signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy and business would undoubtedly be property, unless there is something to the contrary in the enactment apart from holding that there is nothing in Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which restricts in any manner the normal and accepted meaning of the word "property" and excludes business from its connotation. Business would, therefore, be property for the purposes of Section 4(3)(i). The managing agency of a company is business and is "property" for the purposes of Section 4(3)(i). On the basis of such determinations also, Mr. Gooptu submitted that "goods" having the same definition either under the said Act or under the Tamil Nadu Act and which made the existence of possible interest of the possessor, "lottery ticket" must be deemed to be "goods" and a movable property. Incidentally, he claimed that under the said Act all movables are goods and such being the position, a lottery ticket should also be "goods".
Calcutta High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Punjab National Bank Ltd. And Ors. vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 4 October, 1974

In the case of J. K. Trust, Bombay v. Commr. of Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay, this Court held the managing agency business to be a property. The undertaking of a bank will, therefore, be the entfre integrated organisation consisting of all property, movable or immovable and the totality of undertaking is one concept which is not divisible into components or ingredients. That is why in relation to a company the word 'Undertaking' is used in various statutes in order to reach every corner of property, right, title and interest therein. ..................The undertaking is an amalgam of all ingredients of property and is not capable of being dismembered. That would destroy the essence and innate character of the undertaking. In reality the undertaking is a complete and complex weft and the various types of business and assets are threds which cannot be taken apart from the weft. ........."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 February, 1970

In the case of J. K. Trust, Bombay v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay [1958] SCR. 65 this Court held the managing agency business to be a property. The undertaking of a bank will therefore be the entire integrated" organisation consisting of all property, movable or immovable and the totality of undertaking is one concept which is not divisible into components or ingredients. That is why in relation to a company the word 'undertaking' is used in various statutes in order to reach every corner of property, right, title and interest therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 209 - Cited by 1 - J C Shah - Full Document

Qamar Shaffi Tyabji vs The Commissioner, Excess Profits ... on 18 April, 1960

In similar circumstances this Court has held that managing agency is business (see Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. The Government of Hyderabad (1) and J. K. Trust, Bombay v. The Commissioner of Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay (2 ). A consideration of the terms of the agreement of December 6, 1938, also leaves no manner of doubt, in the matter. Full powers of the Trustees as managing agents were delegated to the appellant under cl. 2 of the agreement, subject only to the general control of the Trustees and the clause stated that the appellant was to conduct and manage the business and affairs of the two mills. Clause 3 relating to the tenure of the managing agency, cl. 4 relating to remuneration, cl. 7 relating to termination of business and the clauses (1) [1955] 1 S.C. R. 393 (2) [1958] S C.R. 65.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - S K Das - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Kerala ... vs Krishna Warriar on 29 April, 1964

in our judgment, in holding that the said cl. (b) of the proviso deals with a case of business which is not vested in trust for religious or charitable purposes within the meaning of the substantive clause of s. 4(3) (i). With this introductory remarks we shall proceed to construe the provisions of s. 4(3)(i) of the Act, along with cl. (b) of the Proviso. Under cl. (i), so far as it is relevant to the question raised before us, to earn the exemption the income shall have been derived from property under trust wholly or in part held for religious or charitable purposes. Under cl. (b) of the proviso to that clause, in the case of income derived from business carried on on behalf of a religious or charitable institution, unless the condition laid down thereunder are complied with, the said income cannot be exempted. If business is property and is held under trust ,wholly or partly for religious or charitable purposes, it falls squarely under the substantive part of cl. (i) and in that *vent cl. (b) of the proviso cannot be attracted, as under that clause of the proviso the business mentioned therein is not held under trust but one carried on on I behalf of a religious or charitable institution. To take a business out of the substantive cl. (i) of s. 4(3) and place it in cl. (b) of the proviso, it is suggested that business is not property and that even if it is property the said property is not wholly or partly held in trust for religious or charitable purposes. That business is property is now well settled. The Privy Council in In re Trustees of the Tribune(') did not question the view expressed by the Bombay High Court that business of running the newspaper Tribune was property held under trust for charitable purposes. This Court in J. K. Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax..Excess profits Tax Bombay(') endorsed the said view and held that "property" is a term of the widest import and that business would undoubtedly be property unless there was something to the contrary in the enactment. If business was property, it could be held under trust for religious and charitable purposes. As the,business of running the Arya Vaidya Sala vested under trust for religious and charitable purposes, it would fall under (1) (1939) I.T.R. 415 (P.C.) (2) (1958) S.C.R. 65 46 cl. (i), if the other conditions laid down therein were satisfied. The necessary condition for the application of cl. (i) of s. 4(3) of the Act is that the said property, namely, the business, shall have been wholly or in part held for religious or charitable purposes. As 40 per cent of the profits in the business would be given to purposes other than religious or charitable purposes it cannot be said that the business was held wholly for religious or charitable purposes. But as 60 per cent of the profits thereof would be spent for religious or charitable purposes, the question is whether it can be held that the business was held in trust in part for religious or charitable purposes. The argument advanced on behalf of the Revenue is that the expression "in part" in cl. (i) applies only to a case where an aliquot part of property is vested in trust and that is not legally possible in the case of business. It is said that a business is one and indivisible and, therefore, the subject-matter of trust can only be the share of the profits payable to a partner during the continuance of the partnership or after its dissolution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1   2 Next