Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (4.84 seconds)
Documents citing The Pondicherry Railway Company Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 March, 1931

Sri Annapurna Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 4 December, 1962

The case of Pondicherry Railway Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax was distinguished on the ground that in the said case, the assessee company which obtained a concession for èconstructing railway in the territory of Pondicherry agreed to pay to the French Government half of its net profits. It was held by the Privy Council that the payment could not be of a revenue nature, because it was conditional upon profits coming into existence. As soon as the profits came into existence, it attracted taxation at that point and the revenue was not concerned with the subsequent application of the profits. In the present case, the payment is not conditional upon profits. It was pointed out that what was money wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the trade was a question which must be determined upon the principles of the trade was a question which must be determined upon the principles of ordinary commercial trading. It was necessary, accordingly, to attend to the true nature of the expenditure, and to ask oneself the question was it a part of the companys working expenses ? Was it expenditure laid out as part of the process of profit-earning ?
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dewan Bahadur S.L. Mathias on 29 April, 1937

If that decision gives us any guidance at all in the present case, it may well be held that on the facts here, the receipt of the produce in Mysore itself by the assessee's men on the spot will correspond to the receipt by Mr. Rothera in the Pondicherry Company case and the assessee's receipt of the income in British India can only be a receipt in the secondary stage, just like the receipt by any Nattukottai Chetty here of profits earned by a business carried on on his behalf in foreign countries. Even apart from this view of the facts, it does not seem to us necessary or reasonable to read els. (1) and (2) of Section 4 as mutually exclusive. The first clause comprises 'receipts' falling under the 2nd clause as well, and when the facts of a case clearly bring it within the terms of the 2nd proviso, it is obviously a case which on grounds of policy the legislature intended to exempt and it does not seem to us right to deprive the subject of this exemption by holding that the 'receipt' in British India is in the primary sense and not in the secondary sense, especially when the 2nd clause as well as the 2nd proviso speak only of 'accruing' or 'arising' outside British India and not also of being 'received' outside British India. There can be no doubt that in this case the income 'accrued or arose' without British India and was 'received or brought into British India'. We would chanar, J. give the same answer to the argument founded on Clause (3) of Section 42 which provides for the taxability in British India of profits or gains from the sale in British India of merchandise exported to British India from outside. Reading the clause as a whole, it is evident that it refers to a person who sells goods purchased by him and not to one who sells the produce of his own lands. It is significant that the clause deals only with 'profits' or 'gains' and not with income generally.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Travancore Sugars And Chemicals Ltd. on 5 April, 1968

On appeal the Privy Council held that the Pondicherry Railway Co. case did not govern the case. The nature of the transaction was held to be this that the obligation to make the payments was undertaken by the assessee-company in consideration of its acquisition of the right to property to earn profits, i.e., of the right to conduct the business, and not for the purpose of producing profits in the conduct of the business. Lord Macmillan observed :
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,.West ... on 16 January, 1953

This is also implicit in the decision of the Privy Council in Pondicherry Railway Company Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(5), to which reference has already been made. Section 4(1) (a) in terms is, unlike section 4 (1) (b) or 4 (1) (c), not confined in its application to any particular category of assessees. 'Section 4 (1) (a is general and applies to a resident or a non-resident person. The second proviso to section 4 (1), although it relates to the case of a person not ordinarily resident, also indicates that income, profits and gains which accrue or arise to such a person without the taxable territories can be included in his total income if they are brought into or received in the taxable territories and become chargeable to fax under section 3 read with section 4 (1) (a).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Tata Sons Ltd. on 4 November, 1938

Although we were told in the course of argument that the Assistant Commissioner held that the present case did not fall with in the principle of the decision in Pondicherry Ry. Co. v. Income-tax Commissioner, it seems to me to be clear, on the statement of the case submitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, that he has entirely proceeded upon the principles laid down in that case, as also upon certain observations of Lord Macmillan in the Tata Hydro Electric Agencies, Bombay v. Income-tax Commissioner, Bombay Presidency and Aden.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next