Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Annamalais Timber Trust And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 24 February, 1960 cites

The Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1953

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 132 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. on 18 November, 1949

It should be taken as well settled now that where the contract was entered into is really immaterial in cases of this kind of decide where the profits of the contract accrued or arose : see Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. the principles laid down in which were followed by the Mysore Engineering Co., by the Andhra High Court in Rupajee Ratnachand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, by the Nagpur High Court in Bhopal Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal rightly held that the profits of the assessee accrued wholly in Cochin where all the operation under that contract were carried out that contract. The learned counsel for the Department referred us to that contract.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Rupajee Ratanchand And Anr. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 12 January, 1955

It should be taken as well settled now that where the contract was entered into is really immaterial in cases of this kind of decide where the profits of the contract accrued or arose : see Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. the principles laid down in which were followed by the Mysore Engineering Co., by the Andhra High Court in Rupajee Ratnachand v. Commissioner of Income-tax, by the Nagpur High Court in Bhopal Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal rightly held that the profits of the assessee accrued wholly in Cochin where all the operation under that contract were carried out that contract. The learned counsel for the Department referred us to that contract.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - K S Rao - Full Document

E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954

The learned counsel for the Department refereed us to Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where the learned judges explained the scope of their earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co., that the need for apportionment of profits might arise independent of section 42. Whether, if the profits accrued or arose within British India, which constituted the taxable territories, those profits should be apportioned independent of section 42 of the Act does not arise for consideration in this case. Section 42 of the Act, it should be taken as well settled now, applies only if the profits are deemed to have accrued or arisen within the taxable territories, and now when they actually accrued or arose within them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 1764 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay on 4 May, 1950

The learned counsel for the Department refereed us to Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where the learned judges explained the scope of their earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co., that the need for apportionment of profits might arise independent of section 42. Whether, if the profits accrued or arose within British India, which constituted the taxable territories, those profits should be apportioned independent of section 42 of the Act does not arise for consideration in this case. Section 42 of the Act, it should be taken as well settled now, applies only if the profits are deemed to have accrued or arisen within the taxable territories, and now when they actually accrued or arose within them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 253 - H J Kania - Full Document

Rajkumar Mills Ltd vs C.I.T. Bombay on 20 October, 1954

Annexure "A" to the statement of the case was taken as evidence of the contract which the assessee entered into with the Government of India. The learned counsel for the assessee urged that the finding of the Tribunal, that the assessee and the Government of India entered into that contract at Delhi, was erroneous, as annexure "A" was only in the nature of a final offer from the Government which was addressed to the assessee at his place of business in Cochin. The further contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was that, if that offer had been accepted only at Cochin, that would have been the place where the parties entered into the contract. The learned counsel relied on Rajkumar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax where the Supreme Court laid down that the question where contract was concluded would be a question of law for the court to determine in proceedings under section 66 of the Act. Of course, if all the findings of fact were available, what should be the inference to be drawn from those facts would be a question of law. In this case, however, without a further investigation of facts we cannot reopen the question concluded by the finding of the facts we cannot reopen the question concluded by the finding of the Tribunal, where was the contract concluded. Therefore, it is not wholly question of law that the counsel for the assessee could be allowed to raise at this stage. The parties proceeded all along on the basis that the contract was concluded within British India, and it is not open to the assessee to contend that the place of contract itself is a matter for investigation at this stage. Even in paragraph 14 of annexure "A" what the assessee was asked to do was to confirm the contents of that letter, which purported to set out what the parties had agreed upon at Delhi. We shall, therefore, proceed on the basis, that the Tribunal was not in error when it held that the assessee has negotiated and concluded the contract in British India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... vs A.S.T.F. Rodrigues And Co., Katpady on 27 March, 1951

The learned counsel for the Department relied on the observations of Satyanarayana Rao, J., in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rodriguez and Co. and contended that the contract itself should be viewed as a source of profit that the assessee made, and as that source lay within British India, however, prefer to rest our decision in this case on the basis that the contract the assessee obtained evidenced by annexure "A" was one of his essential trading operations. That is sufficient to bring it within the scope of section 42 (1) of the Act, and that, in its turn, in the circumstances of this case, attracts the application of section 42 (3).
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1