Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Jer And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 13 January, 1971

Motilal Chunnilal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 January, 1987

178. We have already pointed out that in our instant case unlike Form FL II, the Rajasthan Form No. C.L.I.E. contains condition No. 3 which expressly prohibits new partners without written permission of the excise authorities. Therefore, all decisions of the High Courts which relied upon Jer & Co.'s case judgment [1971] 79 ITR 546 (SC)--registration has been allowed in spite of the provisions like Clause 3 of the licence--are based on error of inexactitude in understanding the implications of Jer & Co.'s case [1971] 79 ITR 546 (SC).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 93 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Nalli Venkataramana And Ors. on 18 April, 1983

37. With respect, we agree with the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh, Patna and the Punjab High Courts in the above rulings, for in our opinion too, the reversal of the Allahabad High Court's judgment (Jer & Co.'s case) by the Supreme Court has the effect of the Supreme Court impliedly overruling the various judgments, which have been followed by the Allahabad High Court, including the Madras Full Bench (Velu Padayachi's case, ).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 57 - Cited by 20 - M J Rao - Full Document

Kommineni Krishna Rao vs Kommineni Babjee Rao And Anr. on 25 June, 1990

24. In view of the above, it is clear that the learned judges considered a similar situation. In the present case also, clause 12(2) of the conditions of licence does not prohibit the holder of the licence from entering into a partnership. The only question is whether it amounts to a transfer. When there is no prohibition from entering into a partnership, the question of transfer does not arise on the formation of a partnership. We are bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case referred to (Jer and Co. v. CIT ).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durga Madira Sangh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 July, 1984

Mr. Jain placed reliance on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Gian Chand & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 113, in which case a firm whose five partners had obtained licences in their separate names from the Fisheries Department of the Punjab Government for fishing in public waters, did not become illegal by taking in four others as partners and was not disentitled to registration under Section 185 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as the Punjab Fisheries Rules did not contain any rule prohibiting entering into partnership so far as the fishing licences were concerned, and placed reliance on Jer & Co. v. CIT [1971]79 ITR 546 (SC).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Chennuru Ramarao vs Gowri Sankar Talkies, Tekkali And Ors. on 28 December, 1984

In Jer & Company v. Commr., Income-tax (1972 Tax LR 2436) (SC) (supra) we have already narrated the facts of the case in (earlier) paras and also the decision of the Allahabad High Court which was based on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Velu Padayachi's case (supra). Reversing the decision of the Allahabad High Court, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the licence does not prohibit from entering into a partnership by the holder of the licence. It merely prohibits that the licensee shall not sub-let or transfer. Since there is no prohibition against the entry by the holder of the licence into a partnership the question whether the partnership was illegal does not arise.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 57 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Raveendra Engineering Construction ... on 27 December, 1991

The Supreme Court pointed out in Jer and Co. v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 546, 548 that "The licence does not prohibit the holder from entering into partnership by the holder of the licence : it merely provides that the licence shall not be sub-let or transferred. Since there is no prohibition against entry by the holder of the licence into a partnership the question whether the partnership was illegal does not arise. The firm was entitled on that account to registration ".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Narayanan And Co. And K.S. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 March, 1996

16. According to the assessee, the Supreme Court in Jer and Co. v. CIT, [1971] 79 ITR 546 recognised transfer of the right covered by a licence to deal in liquor in favour of a partnership. So, that decision, it was argued, must govern the issue. This argument, we are afraid, cannot be accepted. In that case, their Lordships were concerned with the licence issued in FL-II, which did not prohibit the licensee from entering into partnership with respect to the business under the licence. The statutory provision dealt with therein only stated that the licensee shall not Sub-rent or transfer the licence. In such a circumstance, since there was no prohibition against entry by the holder of the licence to a partnership, the question whether the partnership was illegal or not, according to their Lordships, did not arise. That decision has no application to the case on hand.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next