Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Jer And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 13 January, 1971
16. According to the assessee, the Supreme Court in Jer and Co. v. CIT, [1971] 79 ITR 546 recognised transfer of the right covered by a licence to deal in liquor in favour of a partnership. So, that decision, it was argued, must govern the issue. This argument, we are afraid, cannot be accepted. In that case, their Lordships were concerned with the licence issued in FL-II, which did not prohibit the licensee from entering into partnership with respect to the business under the licence. The statutory provision dealt with therein only stated that the licensee shall not Sub-rent or transfer the licence. In such a circumstance, since there was no prohibition against entry by the holder of the licence to a partnership, the question whether the partnership was illegal or not, according to their Lordships, did not arise. That decision has no application to the case on hand.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Super ... vs Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. ... on 2 September, 1980
In CIT v. Union Tobacco Co., [1961] 41 ITR 115, a Bench of this court took the view that a licensee by entering into a partnership passes substantial interest in what he has in favour of another and thereby does what the rule seeks to forbid without permission. The statement of the law, according to us, is correct and we approve the same.
Bihari Lal Jaiswal And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors. on 16 November, 1995
18. In view of what has been stated above, we answer all the questions referred in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. As observed by their Lordships in Bihari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT, [ 1996] 217 ITR 746 (SC) ; 1 SCC 443, the partners are bound to be taxed either as an unregistered partnership-firm or as an association of persons.
Section 185 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 19 October, 1994
9. Before examining the above aspect, we have to take note of the public policy behind the grant of licence granted by the State for the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors. It has been consistently held by courts in this country that no person has a fundamental right to deal or trade in intoxicating liquors and the State is entitled to prohibit or regulate their production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale. This position has been put beyond any doubt whatsoever by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, [1995] 1 SCC 574. Thus, the right of a citizen to deal in intoxicating
liquors is only to the extent it is provided for and permitted by the Act and the Rules made thereunder. As far as the State of Kerala is concerned, the licensee should not "sell or otherwise transfer" his licence without the written consent of the Assistant Excise Commissioner. This prohibition imposed on the licensee is one imposed on public policy. The State grants a privilege to the licensee to deal in liquor. The licensee is the only person who is given that privilege and he alone is looked upon by the Government to see whether the said privilege is properly put to use. If the contract entered into between the licensee and the Government is varied in any manner whatsoever, that will tend to injure the public interest. A personal privilege that is obtained by the licensee should be exercised by him and him alone. If he shares that privilege with others, the said action of the licensee will certainly have the tendency to go against the public policy behind the grant of the privilege. The Government in its wisdom enacted the Abkari Act and the Rules thereunder taking note of the public good in restricting the privilege to deal in liquor to the licensee only. That privilege should not be allowed to be shared by the licensee with others. If the licensee is allowed to share the privilege obtained by him under the licence with others, that will certainly go against the public interest and would be injurious and harmful to the public good.
Section 24 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Om Parkash on 2 April, 1976
12. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Om
Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 1745, while dealing with Clause (c) of Section 30 of
the Arbitration Act, 1940, which stated that an award shall not be set aside
except on one or more of the following grounds, namely, (c) that an award
has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid, observed (at page
1749) :