Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.40 seconds)
Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 21 April, 1997 cites

B. R. Ltd vs V. P. Gupta, C.I.T., Bombay on 3 May, 1978

"The learned counsel for the assessee strongly relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 647 (SC), and contends that the decisive test to be applied in this case is the unity of control and not the nature of the lines of business, and that as this case satisfies the test of unity of control, it should be held that the assessee is carrying on the same business though the lines of business carried on by it may be different. But we are of the view that the said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken as laying down that unity of control is the only and sole test to be adopted as contended by the assessee. On the facts of that case, the Supreme Court had to consider the efficacy of the two tests, one, unity of control and, the other, the different lines of business, and as between the two tests, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the test of unity of control should prevail over the other test relating to nature and the lines of business. The said decision of the Supreme Court cannot be taken to have overruled its earlier decisions which laid down the multifarious tests to determine whether the various businesses run by an assessee is one and the same or different and independent business. If unity of control is taken to be the sole and exclusive test, then in all cases where an assessee finances, controls and carries on more than one business, then all businesses will have to naturally be treated as one business, because there is unity of control.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 79 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Binani Printers (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 July, 1982

In the case of Binani Printers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (supra), the assessee carried on two lines of business, printing and publishing. Due to heavy losses in the printing establishment it was closed down and services of all workers in the printing establishment were terminated and they were paid compensation and notice pay. The assessee, however, continued the other business, viz., the business of publication. The assessee claimed deduction of the amount paid as retrenchment compensation and notice pay. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the expenditure was incurred not in the course of business but after the closure of the business. This finding of the ITO was upheld by the Tribunal. On reference, the Honble Calcutta High Court held so far as the Tribunal held that the payment was made on the closure of the business, such a payment could not be considered to be a payment necessary for carrying on business.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 April, 1970

Therefore, the objective tests pointed out in CIT v. Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 632 (SC) and Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 77 ITR 739 (SC), for finding out the existence of interconnection, interlacing and interdependence have to be applied. Applying the objective tests formulated in the two cases referred to above, we have to find out whether the concepts of interconnection, interlacing and interdependence are established in this case".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 89 - J C Shah - Full Document

L.M. Chhabda And Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 21 March, 1967

13. Taking into consideration the legal position explained in the judgments as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear to us that the test of unity of control i.e., common management, common administration, common fund and common head office in itself will not signify that various lines of business carried on by an assessee constitute a single indivisible business. There have to be, in addition other tests such as, interconnection, interlacing and interdependence. As already noticed by us, the computation in this case has been made separately in respect of 21 units of the assessee as separate P&L a/c were drawn up. It is also seen that these units have been scattered at diverse places throughout the country and dealt in diverse products or lines of business. During the course of hearing before us, the assessee has filed a detailed paper book which, inter alia, contained the assessees submissions before the CIT during the course of proceedings under s. 263. Though the learned counsel of the assessee argued that there was considerable interconnection amongst various units of the assessee, no material in this behalf has been produced before us. On perusal of the assessees submission during the course of proceedings under s. 263 also we do not find any specific details of any interconnection, interlacing and interdependence prevailing between the discontinued unit of the assessee, namely, Jay Shree Tyre & Rubber Products, Allahabad, on the one hand and various other units of the assessee-company so as to constitute a single integrated business. We have already mentioned that in the case of L. M. Chhabda & Sons v. CIT (supra), the Honble Supreme Court have clearly held that it is for the assessee to establish that the different ventures constitute parts of the same business.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 49 - Full Document
1   2 Next