Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.59 seconds)
Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 24 April, 1970 cites

P. H. Divecha And Another vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay I on 11 December, 1962

Mr. Kaka also relied upon the case of P. H. Divecha v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which also related to termination of agency rights granted to the assessee-company by Philips Electrical Company. At page 231, the principles on which compensation paid on termination of agency may be held to be capital receipt or revenue receipt are discussed. Mr. Kaka particularly relied upon the fact that the agreement in that case was liable to be determined by either part by giving three months' notice. Even so Rs. 40,000 paid as compensation for goodwill upon termination of agency was held to be capital asset. The court found that the agreement between the assessee-firm and the Philips Electrical Company created a monopoly right of purchase for and monopoly right of sale in certain areas. It secured to the firm an advantage of an enduring nature and was not an ordinary trading agreement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 73 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

The Commissioner Of ... vs Messrs. Vazir Sultan & Sons on 20 March, 1959

28. Having regard to these observations, it is quite clear that much useful purpose cannot be served by out discussing in this judgment the authorities cited at and relied upon at the Bar. Mr. Kaka had relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vazir Sultan & Sons, the ratio whereof is already mentioned in the judgment of Hidayatullah J. referred to above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 111 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs M/S. Motor And General Stores (P.) Ltd on 2 May, 1967

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motors & General Stores (P.) Ltd., the Supreme Court was concerned with the question of balancing charge in respect of a transaction of exchange effected by the assessee in that case. The Supreme Court held that in essence the transaction between the respondent-company (assessee) and the zamindar was one of exchange and there was no sale of the assets of the cinema house for any money consideration and, therefore, the provisions of section 10(2) (vii) did not apply. In this connection the Supreme Court further observed that the sale would involve transfer of property in goods as immovable property for a money consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 171 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka on 23 February, 1962

43. The question No. 4 in the assessment year 1950-51 and the question No. 3 in the assessment year 1951-52 relate to the delivery of 2,946 and 12,067 tons of logs to the assessee-company in respect of the depreciable assets, stores and livestock, mentioned in sub-clause (b) of clause 1 of the agreement dated June 10, 1949. The Income-tax Officer held that the above two quantities were received by the assessee-company when the market value thereof was Rs. 225 per ton. These logs having been received in respect of the depreciable assets, stores and livestock, were received by the assessee-company on revenue account. These logs were timber and stock-in-trade in the hands of the assessee-company. To the extent that upon resale thereof the assessee-company received profits at a rate higher than the rate of Rs. 225 per ton the assessee-company was bound to pay tax as on revenue receipts. This finding is discussed by the Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 18 of its judgment. The Tribunal held that in these cases "the excess over Rs. 225 will be taxable on the principles of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka. Now, Mr. Kaka has contended that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in applying to the facts of the present case the observations of the Supreme Court in the above case. His submission was that these logs were received by the assessee-company over a period of four years ending May 31, 1952. An entirely separate account of these logs was maintained by the assessee-company under the title "Burma forests assets realisation reserve account". These logs were held separately and not mixed up with any logs held by the assessee-company as stock-in-trade in its business. These logs had been received towards capital assets and remained a capital receipts. Mr. Joshi has on the contrary, submitted that since the assessee-company was carrying on ordinarily business of sale of timber logs, the logs received by it would, in ordinary course, form part of its stock-in-trade. These logs were sold by the assessee-company in the ordinary course of its business. Its line of business was to sell logs of timber. The sale of these logs must be, therefore, held to be part of ordinary trading activity of the assessee-company. Since at the date of delivery of these logs the market rate was Rs. 225, the assessee-company was bound to pay tax on the realisations which were in excess of the costs arrived at the market rate of Rs. 225 per ton. In this connection, it is important to remember that the assessee-company did not get the delivery of these logs as purchaser thereof or in the ordinary course of its business. These logs came into the possession of the assessee-company in consequence of the arrangement made under the agreement dated June 10, 1949, against delivery of all its outstanding or residuary rights and assets to the Government. The arrangement was in consequence of nationalisation of forest operations in Burma. As already discussed above, the whole of the quantity of 43,860 tons of logs delivered to the assessee-company was in lieu of the asset of the forest leases and the other diverse assets which were handed over by the assessee-company to the government on June 10, 1949. For the reasons already discussed, all these logs were received by the assessee-company not on revenue account at all. The further fact is that the assessee-company did not mix up these logs with any of the stock-in-trade held by it in its ordinary course of business as timber dealer. These logs were received by the assessee-company in the course of about four years and held by it in the account which is described as "Burma forests assets realisation reserve account". Under these circumstances, the sale proceeds of these logs could not be held to have been received by the assessee-company on revenue account. The contrary finding of the Appellate Tribunal was accordingly wrong. In the result, the answer to the question No. 4 in the first year and the question No. 3 in the second year will be against the revenue and in the negative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 111 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 Next