Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs R. D. Aggarwal & Company on 6 October, 1964
The decision of the Supreme Court in Aggarwals case (supra) was on the facts of the case. That was a case under the old Act where the expressions used were different.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Toshoku Ltd., Guntur Etc on 29 August, 1980
The case of Toshoku Ltd. (supra) also has no bearing. Therein, the commission due to the non-resident was debited in the Indian books of the principal and the question was whether the commission accrued in India. The non-resident was an agent of an Indian principal and his entire operations were admittedly outside India. This case would not help us in resolving the issue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Tata Chemicals Ltd. on 19 June, 1973
15. Shri Bhargava, for the department, submitted that the dealings were not strictly according to the 1931 agreement; who accepts the Indian customer's order ? Indian Co. or the US Co., he submitted, is not at all clearly spelt out. There are sufficient indications that the US Co. accepts the orders through the Indian Co. He submitted that the negotiations leading to sale are taking place only in India, and the Indian Co. merely acts as agents. He further submitted that the Indian Co. is never the owner of the goods at any stage so the theory of principal to principal deal has no application. There is complete control by the US Co. of the business of Indian Co. He then distinguished the cases relied on. In the case of CIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [1974] 94 ITR 85 (Bom.), there were, as a fact, no transactions in India.
Superintendent Of Stamps vs Breul And Co. on 10 January, 1944
21. Some further tests may now be considered. A study of the Bombay High Court decision in Supdt. of Stamps v. Breul & Co. [1944] 46 Bom. LR 686 bring them out. Their Lordships have pointed out that whether two parties act as principal to principal or as agent to a principal has to be decided on the facts of the case and the law governing the contract. In that case, their Lordships were considering a question whether a member of East India Cotton Association making a sale note to a non-member was acting as an agent or as a principal. The Chief Justice found expressions in the contract note which are in conformity with principal to principal relation.
Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Company ... vs Katihar Jute Mills (Private) Limited on 28 June, 1968
22. We will note one more authority before we apply the law to the facts. The Calcutta High Court in Modi Vanaspati Mfg. Co. v. Katihar Jute Mills AIR 1969 Cal. 496 was faced with a similar problem. Katihar Jute Mills ('KJM'for short) entered into agreement for purchase of generators with Bhaduri ('B' for short). The generators were properties of Modi's ('M' for short). There was break of contract and the case of KJM was that B was agent of M and so they could sue M for damages. The High Court had to decide whether B were agents. Para 14 of the judgment is reproduced below:
Gordon Woodroffe & Co vs Sheikh M. A. Majid & Co on 22 March, 1966
The other test suggested by the Supreme Court in Gordon Woodroffe case (supra) quoted by Calcutta High Court is who was to pay the price. That also indicates the Indian buyer only.
Annamalais Timber Trust And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 24 February, 1960
28. Since there is a business connection, we must next see if there is any business operation in India. Only then and to that extent only, could income be deemed to accrue or arise. On the finding that the Indian Co. is an agent of the US Co. we have to give a finding that there are some operations carried on in India. No doubt, the goods are manufactured in USA. The documents of title are handed over to the bankers in USA with whom letter of credit is opened. But, the order is secured in India. Negotiations for the purchase with the Indian buyer is in India. Such an activity has been considered as business operation in Annamalais Timber Trust & Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 781.