Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Hira Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... on 17 April, 1964

Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 December, 1995

Please pay by cheque to the Imperial Bank, Indore". The Bombay High Court in that case held that the instruction as to payment merely constituted the Imperial Bank at Indore a nominee of the assessee to receive payment on its behalf and the words "at Indore" did not have the effect of constituting Indore the place of payment. As the assessee had instructed that the payment be made by cheques and the normal course of sending the cheques was by post, there was an implied request to send the cheques by post and the post office receiving the cheques posted by the Supply Department at Delhi, was the agent of the assessee receiving payment of the bills. The sale proceeds received by cheques, in those circumstances, were held to have been received in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a). The Court, however, held that as there was no request to make payment by drafts and there was nothing to show that a request to make payment by cheque was ordinarily understood in the commercial world to mean a request to make payment either by cheque or by draft, the posting of the drafts in payment of the bills by the Government of India could not be said to, be either on the express or on the implied request of the assessee. The sale proceeds received by demand drafts were received at Ujjain outside British India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 33 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

H.N.J. Dady vs Fourth Income-Tax Officer on 19 March, 1987

The facts here are clearly distinguishable from the facts before us. In Hira Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) the assessee had an account with Imperial Bank of India, Indore, and specific instructions to that Bank were given directly by the assessee. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that any instructions were given by the assessees to the Chartered Bank at Hongkong either directly or through a power of attorney to collect dividend and remit them to their Indian Branch. It can never be said on the facts available before us that the Hongkong office of the Chartered Bank was functioning as an agent of the assessees when the Bombay office of the same Bank was doing all that it was required to do in the matter of collection of dividend from the Hongkong Bank and its remittance to India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Binod Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 28 October, 1965

It was next contended, relying upon a recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Hira Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax, payment by drafts and there was nothing to show that a request to make payment by cheque was ordinarily understood in the commercial world to mean a request to make payment either by cheque or by draft, the posting of the draft in payment of the bills by the Government of India could not be said to be either on the express or implied request of the assessee and, therefore, the sale proceeds which were received by demand drafts were held to be received at Ujjain, outside British India. With the utmost respect, we cannot persuade ourselves to agree with this view. A cheque and a draft are both negotiable instruments and a draft in the business world is invariably preferred to payment by cheque. Therefore, if the request is to pay by cheque and the consignee pays by draft, it will certainly be a request which is in substance on and the same. If anything, the consignor-assessee will be in an advantageous position as a result of the receipt of the draft. The credit for payment by cheque cannot necessarily be given by the bank forthwith and is credited subject to and only on the encashment of the cheque, whereas a draft is negotiable forthwith on presentation. A businessman without any doubt would welcome payment by draft rather than by cheque. A draft is something better than a cheque and may be crossed and dealt with as such. In any event, in the present case, we are not concerned with the place of receipt and, therefore, the question whether the request was for a cheque or a draft is immaterial when considering the question of the accrual and arising of income and not the first receipt thereof.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Laxmichand Muchhal on 28 April, 1966

But the Tribunal nevertheless held that the payments must be deemed to have been made at Delhi. The Punjab High Court, however, held that in view of the certificate by the Patiala State Bank, it must be accepted that the endorsements made on the cheques were of the nature contemplated by the substantive part of Section 50 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and that being so, when once property in the cheques passed by the endorsements made at Bhatinda, the assessee must be taken to have received the amount at Bhatinda, and the subsequent receipts at Delhi by the bank were receipts by the bank and not by the assessee. Here also the bank, by purchasing the documents from the assessee, became a holder for value and gave immediate credit to the assessee without waiting for realisation of the amount of the instruments from the allottees. It is this material fact which distinguishes the present case from the case of Hira Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,[1965] 57 I.T.R. 103 on which the learned Advocate-General placed reliance. There the Tribunal found that the bank had neither discounted nor purchased the drafts or hundis nor credited the sale proceeds to the assessee's cash credit account prior to collection. It was on these facts that in the case of Hira Mills Ltd. the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the bank was acting only as a collection agent and collected the amount from various dealers in British India for and on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, the amount of the sale proceeds was received by the assessee in the taxable territory in British India.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Jubilee Mills Ltd., Bombay on 5 December, 1967

75% of the total shares bearing votes is 78,750. This shows that the holding of the Managing Agents is short by 298 shares for the application of the Explanation to s. 23A. But when we turn to category "C" we find that 6,000 shares were held by the members of the Managing Agency on behalf of minor children and the voting power arising from these shares was in their own hands as guardians. There is no doubt that in the present case shares carrying more than 75% of the voting power are held by persons who form a group in the sense indicated by this Court in Raghuvanshi Mills case and by us here. The reason is this: Shares carrying more than 75% of the voting power are held by the partners of the managing agency or persons under its control. Now it seems to us that it is to the interest of the partners of this firm to exercise their voting power in one way, namely the way that brings to them the largest profit out of the company. It is true that the managing agents are the servants of the company in a manner of speaking and not its masters and also that the object of a firm of managing agents is to carry out certain administrative 98 duties concerning the company under the control of the directors of the company. That however is irrelevant and in any case is far from the truth in the present case. Here the partners of the managing agency practically own the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1