Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Bishamber Singh Layaq Ram on 26 August, 1980 cites

Bhagwandas Parashram vs Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji on 26 November, 1918

The crucial test is whether the agent has any personal interest of his own when he enters into the transaction or whether that interest is limited to his commission agency charges and certain out of pocket expenses, and in the event of any loss his right to be indemnified by the principal. This principle was applied in the case of pakki arhat by Sir Lawrence Jenkins C.J. in Bhagwandas Narotmdas v. Kanji Deoji and approved of by the Judicial Committee in Bhagwandas Parasram v. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji and by this Court in Shivnarayan Kabra v. State of Madras. As to the incidents of pakkiarhat, Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhagwandas Narotamdas's case succinctly states the legal position, in his own terse language:
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Shivnarayan Kabra vs The State Of Madras on 23 August, 1966

The crucial test is whether the agent has any personal interest of his own when he enters into the transaction or whether that interest is limited to his commission agency charges and certain out of pocket expenses, and in the event of any loss his right to be indemnified by the principal. This principle was applied in the case of pakki arhat by Sir Lawrence Jenkins C.J. in Bhagwandas Narotmdas v. Kanji Deoji and approved of by the Judicial Committee in Bhagwandas Parasram v. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji and by this Court in Shivnarayan Kabra v. State of Madras. As to the incidents of pakkiarhat, Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhagwandas Narotamdas's case succinctly states the legal position, in his own terse language:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 62 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

M/S. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal on 10 October, 1972

If the Explanation to s. 2(c) of the Act were not there, perhaps it could be said that a kutcha arhatiya is merely an agent who helps cultivators who bring their produce to the market for sale, to find buyers, assist them in weighment and secure to them payment of price, but the assessee here certainly does not answer that description. That apart, the Explanation clearly brings within the definition of 'dealer' in s. 2(c) a kutcha arhatiya. It was not suggested at any time that the Explanation was ultra vires the State Legislature being beyond the ambit of Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The constitutional validity of a similar Explanation to s. 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 which brought an auctioneer within the purview of the definition of 'dealer' in that section. was upheld by this Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T., West Bengal.(2) The whole object is to tax a transaction of sale in the 555 hands of a person who carries on the business of selling goods and who has the legal or customary authority to sell goods belonging to the principal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 319 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1