Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.86 seconds)Section 221 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala vs Patiala Flour Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd., ... on 6 October, 1968
In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case to hold that the advance to M/s. Mohmad Peer Mohmad of Nasik was not in the ordinary course of business of the assessee-firm and merely incidental to it. As held by this court in CIT v. Equitorial Pvt. Ltd. [1974] Taxation 37(3)-82, the debt owed by M/s. Mohmad Peer Mohmad of Nasik was one which sprang directly from the business of the assessee and was allowable as a bad debt, and, consequently, therefore, a trading loss under section 28(1). It is no doubt true that every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Nainital Bank Ltd on 25 September, 1964
[vide CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 707 (SC)]. In that view of the matter, therefore, for the reasons stated in this order, we are of the opinion that the said loss being a bad debt is allowable as trading loss under s. 28 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and, therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Abdulla Ahmed vs Animendra Kissen Mitter on 14 March, 1950
5. It appears to us that the Tribunal has approached the problem posed before it as if the business of money-lending and the business of commission agency were two separate and distinct compartments which could necessarily be exclusive of each other. Commission agents "appear to resemble independent parties rather than agents". As regards the principal, a commission agent seems to be a seller of good : as regards the third party, a buyer of goods. The relationship between a principal and a commission agent is, therefore, a mixture of that involved in agency and that involved in sale of goods". (vide Friedman's Law of Agency, 4th Edn., p.31). The contracts with commission agents do not follow a single pattern and is a always necessary to bear in mind while considering such contracts as to what are the terms of a particular contract under discussion (vide Abdulla Ahmed v. Animendra Kissan Mitter, AIR 1950 SC 15).
Section 171 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 171 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Smt. Dhirajben R. Amin vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat ... on 10 March, 1967
4. The assessee also requested the Tribunal in the course of its opposition for making a reference as prayed for by the revenue that in case the Tribunal decides to refer the question as prayed for by the revenue, the following question should be referred to this court for its opinion. The Tribunal granted that prayer of the assessee in view of the decision of this court in Smt. Dhirajben R. Amin v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 194 and has referred the same to this court, which is as unde :
Sitaram Company vs Ratilal Ramlal on 5 December, 1968
6. A person appointed as an agent for the sale or purchase of goods on commission having authority to sell or purchase would be a mercantile agent. (vide Sitaram Co. v. Ratilal, AIR 1969 Cal 472). According to s. 171 of the Contract Act, bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers, subject to a contract to the contrary, have a general lien on all goods bailed to them as security for "general balance of account". Thus, general lien of the factors extends to all its lawful claims against the principal as a factor, whether for advances, of remuneration, or for losses or liabilities incurred in the course of his employment in respect of which he is entitled to be indemnified. (vide Pollock & Mulla on Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 9th Edn., p. 683). According to s. 221 of the Indian Contract Act, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, an agent has a lien over goods, papers and other property of his principal received by him until the amount that may be due to the agent are accounted for to him. A commission agent is a general agent who has authority to act for his principal in all matters concerning a particular trade or business or to do some act in the ordinary course of his trade or business. Commission agent employed for a particular job is a special agent. 'Both general and special agents who are authorised to act for the principal have implied authority to do what is incidental to the ordinary conduct of such a trade or business or is within the scope of that class of acts and also whatever is necessary for the proper and effective performance of duties. The general agent has no authority to do anything outside the ordinary scope of this employment and duties. (vide Pollock & Mulla on Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 9th Edn., p. 766). The principal is under a duty to reimburse and indemnify the agent against all liabilities incurred in the execution of his authority, and at any rate where the agency is contractual, the liability is not confined to payments made in discharge of debts legally binding on the principal; the agent may recover indemnity for payments which he is bound to make though the principal is not, liabilities which he has not yet himself discharged, payments which may not have been necessary but which when they were made reasonably appeared to be necessary, and payments of debts which could not be legally enforced but non-payments of which would involve serious consequences. But the act of the agent must have been within the scope of his express or implied authority, as extended by custom, operative in the market in which the agent deals, provided that such custom is reasonable or known to the principal; or else it must have been ratified. (vide Chitty on Contracts, 24th Edn., para. 2119).
1