Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.62 seconds)Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. on 18 November, 1949
The payment at the request of the assessee was made out of the Imperial Bank, Ujjain, by a draft. It is immaterial that the request for payment was by cheque but it was made by draft. In these circumstances there cannot be much doubt on the terms of the contract itself that the profits and gains accrued or arose in British India. The authority relied upon by counsel for the assessee in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. is of little or no avail to the assessee as the facts in that case are clearly distinguishable. There is only superficial resemblance between the facts of that case and the present case. In that case the data furnished, as pointed out by the High Court of Madras, was meager and inadequate. According to the terms of the contract the timber contracted for had to be delivered f. o. r. Chalakudi in an Indian State. The inspection had to take place at the premises of the company. It was found that only the contract was entered into in British India but everything else took place entirely ex-India. The property in the goods also passed outside India; at the moment when the inspector inspected the goods, they became ascertained and were appropriated towards the contract with the assent of the buyers agent acting under authority. Relying upon sections 2 and 23 it was held that the goods were ascertained and appropriated towards the contract ex-India because of the inspection and approval given by the inspector and all that the seller had to do thereafter was to put the goods on rail free of charge and as this was also done at Chalakudi, the income was held as not accruing or arising in British India. As already observed, the contract in the present case, which has been annexed to the statement of the case, and the various documents filed showing the actual state of affairs and the conduct of the parties leave no doubt that the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee has no application.
The Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of ... on 2 November, 1962
Recently, again the Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax was specifically asked to reconsider and affirm the position of law as laid down by it in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. and Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The court observed at page 381 that when the matter goes to the High Court, it has to be dealt with on the evidence which has already been brought on the record. If the statement of the case does not refer to all the relevant and material facts which are already on the record, the High Court may call for a supplemental statement under section 66(4) but the power of the High Court under section 66(4) can be exercised only in respect of material and evidence which has already been brought on the record. And again at page 382 it observed : "and so, if the High Court finds that, in order to deal with the question referred to it satisfactorily, it is necessary to ascertain some relevant and material facts, it should be open to the High Court to direct the Tribunal to make a supplementary statement containing the said material facts. There is no provision in section 66(4) which prevents the exercise of such a power. In some cases, the question of law referred to the High Court may have to be considered in several aspects some of which may not have been appreciated by the Tribunal. There is no doubt that if a question of law is framed in general terms and in dealing with it several aspects fall to be considered, they have to be considered by the High Court even though the Tribunal may not have considered them. In such a case, if in dealing with some aspects of the matter, it becomes necessary to ascertain additional facts, it would be unsatisfactory to require the High Court to answer the question without such additional facts on the ground that they have not been introduced bon the record already."
The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 8 February, 1965
"Now applying section 4(1) (c), the question is where do the profits and gains arise or accrue in a case like the present ? This is not free from difficulty and various views have been, and can be, taken. But as these expressions have not been defined and as they are not words of art, I think they should be construed in their ordinary meaning which businessmen would ordinarily and easily understand in a business transaction. When goods are sold it is to my mind evident that the profit or the loss on any particular transaction arises out of the sale, for until there is a sale there can be no profit. The profit may not be wholly attributable to the sale but that is another matter. It is to my mind unquestionable that they arise, in part, at any rate, out of the sale. Therefore, if the goods are sold in the taxable territories, then, to my mind, the profits or a portion of them arise there..... That brings me to the next question, where were the goods in the present case sold ? That is a mixed question of fact and law and must vary in each case and must, in my opinion, be answered in a commonsense way and not necessarily in the artificial manner laid down by the Sale of Goods Act to determine where and when the property passes."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay on 4 May, 1950
Undoubtedly, as pointed out by Das J. in Ahmedbhai Umarbhais case at page 515, "when a raw material is worked up into a new product by process of manufacture, it obviously increases in value; in other words, there is an accretion of profit to it and the increased value represents this income or profit which is the result of manufacture. As the profits accrue by reason of manufacture, the accrual, in my opinion, cannot but be located at the place where the manufacturing process is gone through. It is immaterial that the manufactured goods are sold later on at various places. If the manufacturer is himself the seller, it might be that he receives the entire profits including that of the manufacture only at the time of the sale; but in an inchoate shape, a portion of the profits does accrue at the place of manufacture, the exact amount of which is only ascertained after the sale takes place. For purposes of computation, the two parts of the business may be conceived of as being carried on by two different sets of persons. As soon as the manufacture is complete, that part of the business is finished and the profits that accrue to that part certainly arise at the place where the manufacture is carried on and not where the sale ultimately takes place."