Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Briton Ferry Steel Co. vs Barry (Inspector Of Taxes). on 7 December, 1939

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka on 23 February, 1962

Sale of Goods Act, 1893, and that on the admitted evidence this reasonable price must be the market price of 4d. per chick. This was the decision which Vaisey, J. followed. From the decision of Vaisey, J. there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal referred to two of its own decisions, namely, Layrock v. Freeman, Hardy & Wills (1) and Briton Perry Steel Co. Ltd. v. Barry (2) and held that the principle stated and the reasoning underlying the judgment of Sir Wilfrid Greene, M. R. in the Briton Ferry Steel Co. Ltd. v. Barry (2) were inconsistent with the conclusion in Watson Bros. v. Hornby(3). The Court of Appeal accordingly allowed the appeal. Sir Raymond Evershed, M.R., (as he then was) said, however, that if the matter wore res integra, he would have been inclined to hold that for the purpose of the stud farm account if one were seeking to put a value on the animals transferred the value must be that which the animals were in fact worth. He expressed the view, however., that the matter was not res integra and as a result of the authorities referred to above which expounded the general principle to be applied, he allowed the appeal. The case was then taken to the House of Lords. The House of Lords decided in favour of the Crown, Lord Oaksey dissenting. Viscount Simonds thus expressed his views in his speech at page 299 of the report:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 111 - S K Das - Full Document

Anil Starch Products Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 6 September, 1965

8. But Mr. Kaji next referred to us the decision in Briton Ferry Steel Co. v. Barry, where the business of the assessee-company consisted in making steel parts and selling them to outside customers as also to certain subsidiary companies which had them converted into blackplate and tinplate and sold them. These subsidiary companies having been wound up in 1934 and the company, having acquired their undertakings and their assets, was subsequently assessed to income-tax on the footing that it had succeeded to the trade carried on by each of them within the meaning of rule 11(2) of the rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D as amended by the Finance Act, 1926, section 32. It was held there that there had been a succession since the business carried on by the subsidiaries would have been no different had they made the steel bars themselves and that for the purpose of computing the profits attributable to the succession, there need not be introduced any notional rule or notional profit realised inter-departmentally but that the sum to be treated as being the cost of making the steel bars for the business acquired should be ascertained, and the difference between the actual sale price of plate and the actual cost of producing plate through each process was the actual profit attributable to the succession. Mr. Kaji relied upon this decision in support of his contention that if market price were to be accepted as the basis of computation in the present case, it would be introducing a concept of notional sale and a notional profit which was disapproved in this decision, and that the proper and the correct basis for such computation, therefore, would be the cost of production of the article transferred inter-departmentally.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 21 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs K. H. Chambers, Madras on 9 November, 1964

(1) whether a similar trade has been carried on after the transfer; (2) whether goodwill or other intangible assets are included in the transfer; (3) whether staff is taken over; (4) the treatment on transfer of the stock and debts of the transferor; (5) whether there was an interval in the carrying on of the trade as a result of the transfer'." (Briton Ferry Steel Co., Ltd. v. Barry, [1940] 1 K. B. 463, 476).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Ltd. on 25 April, 1978

8. He also cited Briton Ferry Steel Co. v. Barry (Inspector of Taxes) [1941] 9 ITR (Supp) 122 (CA). The facts in this case were that the business of the company consisted of manufacturing steel bars and selling them to outside customers and subsidiaries. The subsidiary companies used to convert the bars into black plate and tin plate and sell the same. Subsequently, the subsidiary companies were wound up and the parent company acquired their undertakings and assets. The parent company was thereafter assessed to income-tax on the footing that it had succeeded to the trade carried on by each of the subsidiary companies. The contention of the assessee was that it had set up a new trade. The matter finally went up to the Court of Appeal. The relevant observations of Greene M.R. (at pages 127-128 of the report) arc as follows :
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1