Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 159 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing The Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1953

Jethmal Parasram vs Commr. Of Income Tax, Delhi, East Punjab ... on 22 November, 1954

6. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1953 SC 105 (B) and again in --'The Anglo French Textile Co., Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras', AIR 1954 SC 198 (D). Bhagwati J., pointed out that "Section 42 (3) ............ is a part of the scheme which is enacted in Section 42". When income, profits and gains can be deemed to nave accrued within the taxable territory under Section 42 (1) of the Act, and a part of the operations, which resulted in the income, profits and gains, was carried out outside it, but a part of the operations had been carried out within British India, how the profits are then to be apportioned is indicated in Section 42 (3). It provides that only such profits and gains as are reasonably attributable to that part of the operations which were carried out within the taxable territories, will be deemed to have accrued or arisen within those territories. Clause (3) of Section 42 cannot be read independently of Clause (1). While Clause (1) deals with the question when income should be deemed to have accrued or arisen within taxable territories Clause (3) provides how such income is to be apportioned when part of the operations, which resulted in the income, was carried out within the taxable territories and part outside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

C. G. Krishnaswami Naidu vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 6 September, 1965

In support of his contention learned counsel principally relies on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. (No. 2) v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Anglo-French Textile Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Each of these cases related to manufacture and sale of certain resident in British India, carried on the business of manufacturing and selling groundnut oil. The oil was manufactured in its mills at Raichur and it was sold partly in Raichur and partly in Bombay. The assessees contention was that part of the profits derived from sales in British Indian of the oil manufactured at Raichur was attributable to the manufacturing operations at Raichur, and that such profits should be excluded from assessment to excess profits tax under the third proviso to section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The revenue authorities maintained that the manufacturing operations carried on at Raichur did not constitute a part of the assessees business within the meaning of the third proviso to section 5, and that even if such operations could be regarded as part of the business, the profits derived from sales in Bombay could not be said to have accrued or arisen in that State. The Supreme Court held that the activity which the assessees Carried on at Raichur was a part if their business within the meaning of the third proviso to section 5, that the profits of a part of the business, namely, the manufacture of oil in their mills at Raichur, accrued or arose at Raichur and that such profits were not assessable to excess profits tax under the third proviso to section 5. This decision no doubt recognised the principle of distributive situs of accrual. But it would seem that, for application of this principle, it is necessary to ascertain whether than part of the business which is capable of being treated as on separate unit in Hyderabad State had given rise to the income or profits sought by the assessee to be exempted from taxation in that case. Where manufacturing was a distinct business activity, as distinguished from trading activity, the Supreme Court considered that the whole profits did not necessarily arise from the sales or at the place of sale, and the profits could be apportioned between manufacturing and trading activities. Patanjali Sastri J. (as he then was) was not, however, prepared to hold, if we may say so, that there was any justification, apart from section 42, to lay down a general principle of apportionment based on distributive process.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rajshri Pictures, Private Ltd., Jaipur vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi ... on 21 November, 1962

The High Court accordingly considered the said questions and answered question No. 1 in the negative and against the assessee. Regarding question No. 2, the opinion of the High Court was that the income received in British India could not be said to wholly arise in India within the meaning of Section 4-A (c) (b) of the Act and that there should be allocation of the income between the various profit producing operations of the business of the company in the light of principle contained in the earlier judgments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Commr. of Income-tax. Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co., Bombay, AIR 1950 SC 134 and The Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1953 SC 105. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also answered question No. 1 in the negative.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd on 30 April, 1970

The Parliament apparently realized the hardship involved in preventing a person who has only one source (such source being profession, business or vocation) of income from carrying forward the loss to the subsequent years of assessment and incorporated by Act 25 of 1953, with effect from April 1, 1952, sub-s. (2A) and enabled the assessee to carry forward the loss when he made a return within the time specified in sub-s. (1), even if there was no other source of income. The Parliament by the same Act amended sub-s. (2) of s. 24 and added the words "so much of the loss as is not so set off or the whole loss where the assessee had no ,other head of income" after the words "cannot be wholly set off under sub-section (1) ". This was intended to supersede a part ,of the decision of this Court in Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd's case (1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 305 - J C Shah - Full Document

Snc-Lavalin/Acres Inc. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 March, 2007

8.4 As regards reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and CTT v. Ahmedbhai Umaibhai & Co. (supra), Shri Chopra submitted that both these decisions laid down that when different business operations are carried out by a business entity in various tax jurisdictions like manufacturing activity in one territory and sale of the products at another territory, profits of the entire business arising to the assessee engaged in these operations would need to be bifurcated on rational principles of commercial accounting. The proposition is unexceptional and well-settled. However, when separate accounts are maintained in the various tax jurisdictions, that is, for the manufacturing operation in one jurisdiction and sale in the other jurisdiction, profits arising in the various jurisdictions would necessarily have to be adopted on the basis of such separate accounts. Even after maintaining the separate accounts for the various branches, there would be no occasion for carrying out any further exercise of apportionment of aggregate profits of the assessee. In the instant case, since the project office in India has maintained the accounts in India in respect of execution of the project, profits arrived at in its books are liable to be treated as the profits of the project office, that is, the profits of the PE in India without any further apportionment. The contention on behalf of the assessee company for apportionment is not in consonance with the realities of the situation. There is in fact no occasion for any apportionment after the project accounts have been maintained in India.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Annamalais Timber Trust And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 24 February, 1960

The assessee was entitled to ten per cent. of the cost of production as his profit, which, of course, it had to share with the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, which provided trained personnel to supervise the execution of the works. Taking the special features of the contract into consideration, we are of opinion that a share of the assessees profits should be attributed to that trading operation, and that the share to be so attributed should be something more than nominal. The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that in Anglo French Textile Co Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax ten per cent. was considered reasonable, where the trading operations consisted of purchase of raw material within the taxable territories, while the rest of the trading operations were in Pondicherry outside the taxable territories. We can see considerable force in his contention, that there will be no justification for allowing a higher percentage than ten per cent. in this case, where the only trading operation within British India was to negotiate and conclude the contract.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next