Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 27 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Raja Reddy Mallaram. on 20 November, 1963
In Commissioner of Income-tax Andhra Pradesh v. Raja Reddi Mallaram, the Supreme Court held that an order of assessment made subsequent to the dissolution of an association of persons, after serving a notice upon one of its members, in accordance with S. 63(2) o the Act, could be enforced against the other members who were not served.
Section 15 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
K. P. G. B. U. G. M. S. S. A. Mohamad Abdul ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 23 August, 1948
(5) Learned counsel then argued that even if it were to be taken that the partnership took the contract, such partnership must be regarded as illegal on the principle accepted in certain decisions of this court, to which we shall presently made reference. In other words, the contention advanced before us went to the extent that every partnership doing business in arrack and toddy., should necessarily be regarded as an illegal one. Support of this contention was sought from Md. Abdul Kareem and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, 1948-2 Mad LJ 528: (AIR 1949 Mad 509) where a partnership between two persons, one who had taken a lease of an arrack shop and the other a toddy shop, to run the tow businesses for their joint benefit, was held to be illegal; and the firm was held liable to be assessed as an association of persons.
Section 56 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Velu Padayachi vs Sivasooriam Pillai on 16 December, 1949
Section 55 and 56 of the Act render punishable the sale of liquor or intoxicating drug is contravention of the Act, or of any rule or order made, or of any license or permit obtained there under. A license issued under the Act generally contains a clause that no privilege of supply or vend shall be sold, transferred, or subrented without the Collector's previous permission. It was held by the Full Bench that the formation of a partnership to exploit a license granted in favour of one of the partners would amount to a contravention of the provision of S. 15 of the Abkari Act or of the terms of the license referred to above.
J.D. Italia vs D. Cowasjee And Ors. on 23 November, 1943
In J. D. Italia v. D. Cowasjee, ILR 1944 Mad 697: (AIR 1944 mad 295) this court had to consider that problem. In that case two partners entered into an agreement of partnership for the purpose of acquiring a license for carrying on business in toddy. One of them obtained the license in his own name. It was found that the Revenue authorities were fully aware of the arrangement between the partners that the license issued in the name of one was to be used for the benefit of the partnership; evidence revealed that he Revenue Authorities were agreeable to the business being carried on in partnership, with the license in the name of one of them. On these facts, this court held that so long as that position lasted, i.e., the concurrence of the authorities to that act of the partners, the partnership could not be regarded as illegal.
1