Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 432 (2.39 seconds)
Documents citing Bacha F. Guzdar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 28 October, 1954

Ahmedabad Manufacturing And Calico ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I on 6 May, 1981

26. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and to some extent with the view taken by the Kerala High Court. Profits and gains can be said to have been "derived" from an activity carried on by a person only if the said activity is an immediate and effective source of the said profit or gain. There must be a direct nexus between the activity and the earning of the profits and gains. In other words, what we have to consider is the proximate sosurce and not the sosurce to which the profit or gain may in a remote indirect way be referable. The view to this effect of the Privy Council in CIT. Kamakhya Narayan Singh [1948] 16 ITR 325 was approved by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 and followed by the Kerala High Court in Cochin Company v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 822 and by the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 951. In our opinion, the word "derive" to be found in s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the relevant Finance Act will have to be given a meaning consistent with what was decided in the above decisions. The words "derived from exports" cannot be accepted as equivalent to "referable to exports" or even indirectly or remotely connected with the exports by a nebulous link.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 36 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Eastern Seafoods Exports (P.) Ltd. on 20 October, 1994

16. A Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Cochin Co. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 822 considered a case of the sale of import entitlements like the case of the assessee and proceeded "as we have to take notice of the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of CIT v. Raja Bahadur Kamakhaya Narayan Singh [1948] 16 ITR 325 and Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT " and said (at page 830) :
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Ahmedabad Manufacturing And Calico ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 6 May, 1981

We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and to some extent with the view taken by the Kerala High Court. Profits and gains can be said to have been "derived" from an activity carried on by a person only if the said activity is an immediate and effective source of the said profit or gain. There must be a direct nexus between the activity and the earning of the profits and gains. In other words, what we have to consider is the proximate sosurce and not the sosurce to which the profit or gain may in a remote indirect way be referable. The view to this effect of the Privy Council in CIT. Kamakhya Narayan Singh [1948] 16 ITR 325 was approved by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 and followed by the Kerala High Court in Cochin Company v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 822 and by the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 951. In our opinion, the word "derive" to be found in s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the relevant Finance Act will have to be given a meaning consistent with what was decided in the above decisions. The words "derived from exports" cannot be accepted as equivalent to "referable to exports" or even indirectly or remotely connected with the exports by a nebulous link.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.E. Billimoria And Co.Ltd vs Mahindra Bebanco Developoers Ltd. And ... on 2 May, 2017

88. The Supreme Court in case of Bacha F. Guzdar, Bombay (supra) has held that the shareholders of the company has no right in the assets of the company. In my view though the petitioner is admittedly a shareholder holding 30% shares, it cannot claim any right, title or interest whatsoever nature in the assets of the respondent no.1 company.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Smt. Chechamma Thomas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 September, 1985

11. If we carefully consider the facts of the case and the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1, we would at once realise that that decision has no application to the present case. The facts of the case were as follows. The assessee was a shareholder in certain tea companies 60% of whose income was exempt from tax as agricultural income under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee claimed that 60% of the dividend income received by her on her shares in those companies was also exempt from tax as agricultural income. The Supreme Court held that the dividend income received by the assessee was not agricultural income but was income assessable under Section 12. What weighed with the Supreme Court was that in the light of the definition of "agricultural income" in Section 2(1), which read :
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Young Indian, New Delhi vs Acit(E), New Delhi on 31 March, 2022

57. The next issue which was vehemently canvassed before us on behalf of the appellant was with regard to the transfer of shareholding from AJL to Young India. It is the case of the appellant that mere transfer of shareholding cannot be a ground for holding that to be change of ownership or transfer of the lease. Placing reliance on the judgment of Bacha F. Guzdar (supra) detailed submissions were made by Dr. Singhvi to emphasize that a shareholder only acquires a right to participate in the profit of the company. He gets no interest in the property of the company and even if the shareholders of the company do have some voice in administering the affairs of the company, but their interest is limited to sharing the profits of the company and the company, a juristic person, which is distinct from the shareholders still owns the property. It is argued that in the backdrop of this legal position even if some of the shares of the company have been transferred that would not mean that the ownership of the leased premises also get transferred to Young India Ltd. It was emphasized that the ownership still remains even on such 347 ITA No.1251/Del./2019 transfer with AJL and the said transfer would not have any effect on the ownership or transfer of the leased premises. To consider this aspect of the matter, we are required to take note of the shareholding pattern of both the companies and the manner in which the transactions have taken place and further in case the lifting of the veil theory is applied, what would be its effect with regard to the issue in question.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 192 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next