Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing United India Life Assurance Company ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 10 January, 1963

Marshall Sons And Co. (India) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 10 June, 1991

In United India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 965, the question arose as to when a Swiss company became merged with the assessee-company losing all rights of ownership in its assets. It was maintained on behalf of the assessee that the transfer took effect on January 1, 1952, though the court passed orders on July 10, 1954, and, therefore, in respect of the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, it would not be open to the Revenue to treat the businesses as those of two companies, and apply either rule 2(a) or rule 2(b) on the Schedule or both. This was rejected by the authorities below and, on a reference, this court, after referring to the terms in the scheme of amalgamation, providing for the transferee taking over the liabilities, etc., as on January 1, 1952, pointed out that the language of section 153A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, clearly indicated that the instrumentality of transfer is not the agreement, but the order of the court. It was also further pointed out that, if the court refused to set its seal to the scheme of amalgamation, the arrangement would fall to the ground and it is, therefore, the sanction of court which gives life to it; even an order of court does not have retrospective operation so as to claim that the scheme had been in operation from an anterior date, anterior to the date of sanction and the order of court cannot have retrospective effect or operation. In arriving at this conclusion, the court stated that it would be very difficult to contend that ex post facto sanction by a court, of an agreement, would achieve the legal result of making the agreement effective, either from its date or from a date long anterior to it, by imagining a fiction that the court gave the sanction on the date from which the operation is claimed.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mrs. Grace Collis vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 January, 1984

It is true that in the case of United India Life Assurance Co, Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, it has been held that the compromise or arrangement for the amalgamation of the company takes effect on the date on which the Court sanctions the scheme under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act and that the sanctioa has no retrospective operation and does not make the transfer effective from the date of agreement or resolution. But this does not mean that the shareholders were not in the picture at all and that the entire scheme should be treated as one propounded and enforced by the Court. If the contention of the assessees that when a Court approves a scheme of the present nature, there is no transfer of the shares by the shareholders of the amalgamating company is accepted, the result will be that a distinction without, difference will be made in the case of schemes which provide for a formal transfer or exchange of the shares of the amalgamating company and the schemes like the present one where there is only a direction to issue shares of the amalgamated company. It is difficult of accept the proposition that in the present case the shares in the amalgamated company were issued to the assessees without any consideration and without being deprived of the shares in the amalgamating company. We are also unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessees that the transfer of the assets of the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company was a transaction entirely between the companies as distinct from a transaction between the shareholders. It is true that the shares belong to the shareholders and that the shareholders are a different entity from the company. But this will not render the issue of the shares in the amalgamated company to the shareholders of the amalgamating company as a transaction without consideration.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs East India Lamp & Components on 29 January, 1981

22. Mr. Bagchi next makes a reference to the case of the Madras High Court in United India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1963] 49 ITR 965 ; 33 Comp Cas 849. It is held therein that where a compromise or arrangement for amalgamation of companies involves an agreement for a transfer of the assets of one company to the other, the transfer takes effect only from the date on which the court sanctions the scheme under Section 153A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The sanction of the court under this section has no retrospective operation and does not make the transfer effective from the date of the agreement or from the date of resolution of the company approving the agreement. But in this case the letter dated December 2, 1969, confers and ratifies the agreement between the parties of November 28, 1969. In this view of the matter, this decision has little bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Mrs. Grace Collis And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 June, 1996

On behalf of the assessees reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in United India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 965, with regard to the consequence in regard to a compromise or arrangement of amalgamation of companies. For and in support of a submission that it involves an agreement in regard to transfer of assets of one company in favour of the other and it is the court that sanctions the scheme and thereby the court does not make a transfer. All this was submitted to show that the amalgamation cannot be understood as action of the parties but by the order of the court.
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi on 17 October, 1967

United India Life Insurance Co. v. Commr, of Income-tax, Madras , Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Commr. of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and Pandyan Insurance Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, . In none of the said cases, the question regarding the effect of an exemption by Ntoification under Section 60 of the Act arose and the said decisions are nto, therefore, of any assistant in the determination of the question involved in the present case. The said decisions do nto support the contention of Shri Kirpal that the exemption under section 4(3) (xii) is on a par with section 60, and that the said decisions would apply to the present case. Therefore, these contentions of Shri Kirpal have also to be rejected as untenable.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 8 - I D Dua - Full Document

Marshall Sons & Co. [India] Ltd vs Income Tax Officer on 27 November, 1996

Sri N.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant, urged a number of grounds in support of his attack upon the validity of the judgment under appeal. He submitted that the view taken by the Madras High Court in United India Life Assurance Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1963) 49 I.T.R. 956], which has been followed in the judgment under appeal does not represent the correct view of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 99 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Mitsu Ltd.,, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 February, 2007

8. Without prejudice to aforesaid contention, the counsel of the assessee submitted that position of the Tribunal is same as a Court of appeal under the Civil Procedure Code and its powers are identical with that of an Appellate Court under the Civil Procedure Code as held by Bombay High Court in the case of New India Life Insurance Company Ltd Vs CIT [1983] 143 ITR 69 and CIT Vs Raj Narain Tiwari [1978] 113 ITR 163 (All.). It was submitted that it is a basic duty of the CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of appeal. He cannot refuse to decide any ground of appeal raised before him particularly the ground challenging the Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to reopen and frame the already completed assessment u/s 143(3).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitsu Ltd.,, Vapi vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 November, 2002

8 Without prejudice to aforesaid contention, the counsel of the assessee submitted that position of the Tribunal is same as a Court of appeal under the Civil Procedure Code and its powers are identical with that of an Appellate Court under the Civil Procedure Code as held by l3ombay High Court in the case of New India Life Insurance Company Ltd Vs CIT [1983] 143 ITR 69 and CIT Vs Raj Narain Tiwari [1978] 113 ITR 163 (All.). It was submitted that it is a basic duty of the CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of appeal. He cannot refuse to decide any ground, of appeal raised before him partkulai1y the ground. challenging the Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to reopen arid frame the already completed assessment u/s 143(3). When a preliminary point is raised as pointed out earlier, the Tribunal being a 4 Court can accept the same and remand the matter as held by Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Bhavna Chemical Ltd V3 CIT 231 ITR 507 (SC). Following this principle, when the learned CJT(A) committed a mistake in not adjudicating the ground challenging the re-opening of the assessment, in that event, on a plea raised by respondent assessee, Tribunal can set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and ___ him to first decide the ground challenging the Jurisdiction u/s 147 r. w. s. 148 and thereafter, if required, adjudicate other grounds of appeal. Counsel of the assessee accordingly submitted that even without admitting the additional ground under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules, (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the respondent can support the order on ground decided against it even when it might not have filed an appeal. In this view of the matter, counsel of the assessee submitted that the impugned order of learned CIT(A) be set aside, he be directed to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh, including ground No.3 which he refused to adjudicate in the impugned order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next