Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)The Anglo-French Textile Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1953
In fact the matter stands concluded by a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of income-tax, (1953) 23 ITR 101: (AIR 1953 SC 105) to the same effect. It is thus necessary that in order to establish a business connection within the meaning of Section 42 (1) there should be an element of continuity in the relationship between a non-resident and a resident in British India. It may also be pointed out that it is not the length of time during which the connection has subsisted but the nature of the connection which would determine whether a business connection within the meaning of Section 42(1) has been established or not. Thus a course of numerous dealings within a short time having an element of continuity about
them would be sufficient to establish a business connection. We hold accordingly.
Banglore Woollen, Cotton And Silk Mills ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 December, 1949
8. It is now well settled that a business connection of the nature contemplated in Sub-section (1) of Section 42 is a relationship which connotes some element of continuity between the person in British India who helps to make the profits and the person outside British India who receives or realises the profits, and that an isolated transaction between a non-resident and a resident in British India, without any course of dealings which could be described as a business connection does not attract the operation of Section 42. This view has been taken in Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay v. Metro Goldwyn Hayer (India) Ltd., (1939) 7 ITR 176: (AIR 1939 Bom 257), Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, (1950) 18 ITR 423 : (AIR 1951 Mad 361), Anglo-French Textile Co., Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1950) 18 ITR 888 : (AIR 1951 Mad 597), Abdullabhai Abdul Kader v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1952) 22 ITR 241: (AIR 1953 Bom 9) and A.P. Damodara Shenoy v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City, (1954) 26 ITR 650: (AIR 1955 Bom 269).
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Currimbhoy Ebrahim And Sons Ltd. on 28 February, 1933
This view was in fact laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council as far back as 1935 in Commr. of Income Tax, Bombay v. Currimbhoy Ebrahim and Sons, Ltd., (1935) 3 ITR 395: (AIR 1936 PC I).
Chas. J. Webb Sons And Co. Inc. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, East ... on 21 March, 1949
It was held in J. Webb Sons and Co. Inc. Philadelphia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, East Punjab and Delhi, (1950) 18 ITR 33: (AIR 1951 Punj 347) that the purchase in British India of wool by a non-resident company as raw material for use in manufacturing carpets is an operation carried out in the coarse of its business by a person or firm which manufactures carpets and that the purchase contributes to an appreciable degree to the ultimate profit which is realised on the sale of the manufactured articles. The learned Judges further observed that a wise purchase of raw materials must contribute to a considerable extent to the profits realised on the sale of manufactured products and one way in which this can be brought about is by the manufacturers' direct purchase of raw materials in the countries where they are best available.
Annamalais Timber Trust And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 24 February, 1960
In this respect Mr. Bhargava has invited our attention to Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, (1961) 21 ITR 781 (Mad) for the proposition that the apportionment of profits under Section 42 (3) of the Act should not be arbitrary but should be on a rational basis and he has contended that such an apportionment should be nominal. He has also invited
our attention to the schedule appended to the agreement for the avoidance of double taxation with Pakistan under which 10 per cent of the profit was attributed to the purchase operations. We entirely agree that apportionment of such profits should not be arbitrary and that it should be on a rational basis. We are, however, not persuaded that the case of Annamalais Timber Trust and Co., (1961) 41 ITR 781 (Mad) bears any resemblance to the present case for in that case the contract alone was entered into within the taxable territories whereas all the other trading operations took place outside those territories.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs The National Mutual Association Of ... on 27 February, 1933
coming 'to this conclusion, by the view, adopted in
The Commissioner of Income-tax, v. National
Mutual Association of Australasia Ltd., ILR, 57
Bom 519: (AIR 1933 Bom 427) wherein Rangnekar
J. observed as follows:--
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Metro Goldwyn Mayer (India) Ltd. (As ... on 2 November, 1938
8. It is now well settled that a business connection of the nature contemplated in Sub-section (1) of Section 42 is a relationship which connotes some element of continuity between the person in British India who helps to make the profits and the person outside British India who receives or realises the profits, and that an isolated transaction between a non-resident and a resident in British India, without any course of dealings which could be described as a business connection does not attract the operation of Section 42. This view has been taken in Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay v. Metro Goldwyn Hayer (India) Ltd., (1939) 7 ITR 176: (AIR 1939 Bom 257), Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, (1950) 18 ITR 423 : (AIR 1951 Mad 361), Anglo-French Textile Co., Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1950) 18 ITR 888 : (AIR 1951 Mad 597), Abdullabhai Abdul Kader v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1952) 22 ITR 241: (AIR 1953 Bom 9) and A.P. Damodara Shenoy v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City, (1954) 26 ITR 650: (AIR 1955 Bom 269).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Evans Medical Supplies Ltd. on 27 October, 1958
It is significant that the preposition "in" has been used in the sub-section and not the preposition "with", so that the business connection contemplated by the sub-section is something wider than mere doing business with British India. The expression "business connection" has not been defined in the Act although Section 2(4) defines "business" to include any trade, commerce, or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture. The definition is obviously an inclusive one and we are in agreement with the view expressed in Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City I v. Evans Medical Supplies Ltd., (1959) 36 ITR 418 : (AIR 1959 Bom 448) that the expression "business connection" in Section 42(1) is an expression of "wide and indefinite import" and that that expression is different from, though undoubtedly related to, the expression "business" as defined in the Act.
Abdullabhai Abdul Kader vs Income-Tax Commissioner, Bombay City on 25 March, 1952
8. It is now well settled that a business connection of the nature contemplated in Sub-section (1) of Section 42 is a relationship which connotes some element of continuity between the person in British India who helps to make the profits and the person outside British India who receives or realises the profits, and that an isolated transaction between a non-resident and a resident in British India, without any course of dealings which could be described as a business connection does not attract the operation of Section 42. This view has been taken in Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay v. Metro Goldwyn Hayer (India) Ltd., (1939) 7 ITR 176: (AIR 1939 Bom 257), Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, (1950) 18 ITR 423 : (AIR 1951 Mad 361), Anglo-French Textile Co., Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1950) 18 ITR 888 : (AIR 1951 Mad 597), Abdullabhai Abdul Kader v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1952) 22 ITR 241: (AIR 1953 Bom 9) and A.P. Damodara Shenoy v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City, (1954) 26 ITR 650: (AIR 1955 Bom 269).