Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.60 seconds)Section 42 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay on 4 May, 1950
He contended that
the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax,
Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay("), turned on the
statutory provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act read with
section 42 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act which was
expressly incorporated therein by virtue of section 21 of
the Act and not on any general principles of apportion. ment
of income, profits or gains enunciated therein. He took us
in extensover the portions of the majority judgments and
tried to demonstrate that the decision there was based
purely on the applicability of section 42 (3) of the Indian
Income-tax Act, but for the applicability of which,
according to his submission, there was no room for the
apportionment of the income, profits or gains of the
business, in the manner contended by the appellant. We do
not accept this contention of the respondent.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Diwan Bahadur S. L. Mathias. on 29 April, 1937
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also
proceeded on that basis and confirmed the order of the
Income-tax Officer. He was however further of the opinion
that the entire profits were received where the sale pro-
ceeds were received and the assessee was therefore. liable
to tax under section 4(1)(a) also. This conclusion was
arrived at by him relying upon two decisions of their
Lordships of the Privy Council: (1)
529
Pondicherry Railway Company V. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Madras(1) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Diwan
Bahadur Mathias(2), in the first of which at page 369 Lord
Macmillan observed as follows : Their Lordships accordingly
are of the opinion that the income derived by the
Pondicherry Railway Company from the payment made to them by
the South Indian Railway Company is on the facts stated
received in British India within the meaning of the Act by
the Agent of the Pondicherry Railway Company there on their
behalf " It is unnecessary to go on to consider whether the
business is carried on in British India, which is the form
which question (c) takes, for it is enough if the profits of
a business carried on by the assessee are received in
British India and the place where the business is carried on
is not material." The Appellate Tribunal adverted to the
fact that the whole income of the company, so far as 1942-43
is concerned was received in British India and so far as
1943-44 is concerned a major part of it in this way was
received in British India, but did not base its decision on
this aspect of the case. It held that the scope of section
42(3) was circumscribed by confinement to those cases where
profits were deemed to accrue or arise under section 42
alone and there was no warrant for extending the principle
of apportionment to other cases where the profits and gains
were made taxable under other sections of the Act. It also
held that section 42 dealt with " deemed " income whereas
section 4-A (c) dealt with income that arose in British
India. Therefore, it could not be said that for the purpose
of section 4-A (c) a proportionate "deemed " income should
be taken as income that arose in British India. When the
application for reference was made to the Appellate Tribunal
the Commissioner of Income-tax in the question (1) which he
suggested included within its ambit this aspect of the
income having been received by the assessee in British India
during the previous year. But when the Appellate Tribunal
refrained the question (1) it merely
(1) (1931) 5 I.T.C. 363-
(2) [1939] 7 I.T.R- 48.
The Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. By ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 January, 1950
The
High Court has accordingly considered these two questions
which were referred to it for opinion and has answered the
question No. I in the negative and against the assessee and
question No. 2 in the manner following, i.e., the income
received in British India cannot be said to wholly arise in
India within the meaning of section 4A (c) (b) of the Act
and that there should be allocation of the income between
the various profit producing operations of the business of
the company in the light of the principle contained in the
judgments in Ahmedbhai Umarbhai's case(1) and in Anglo-
French Textile Company v. Income-tax Commissioner(2)
relating to the same assessee.