Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... vs A.S.T.F. Rodrigues And Co., Katpady on 27 March, 1951 cites

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chunilal B. Mehta on 16 June, 1938

"While accepting this distinction, I am however, unable to accept the contention that the source of income can never be the place where the income accrues or arises. In my opinion, there is nothing to prevent income accruing or arising at the place of the source. The question where the income accrued has to be determined on the facts of each case. The income may accrue or arise at the place of the source or may accrue or arise elsewhere. But it does not follow that income cannot accrue or arise at the place where the source existed. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether that part of the business which is capable of being treated as one separate unit in the Hyderabad State has given rise to the income or profit sought by the assessee to be exempted from taxation in the present case." (8) Mahajan, J., (with whom Fazl Ali, J., agreed) also said that it will be doing no violence to the meaning of the words "accrue' 'or "arise" If the profits attributable to the manufacturing business are said to arise or accrue at the place where the manufacture is being done and the profits which arise by reason of the sale are said to arise at the place where the sales are made. This apportionment of profits between a number of businesses which are carried on by the same person at different places determines also the accrual of profits. Patanjali Sastri, J., referred to 'Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal B. Mehta', ILR (1938) Bom 752, and struck a somewhat different note when he said: "It is with reference to such transactions which individually contribute to the surplus arising in the various places abroad that their Lordships spoke' of the profits accruing or arising distributively and not in a single place. That they were not thinking of the profits resulting from a single composite proceeds such as manufacture and sale and their 'disintegration and apportionment between the different operations is shown by their further observation that 'profits are frequently, if not ordinarily, regarded as arising from many transactions each of which has a result, not as if the profits need be disintegrated with difficulty but as if they were the aggregate of the particular results."
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Excess Profits Tax vs Goculdoss Jamnadoss And Co. on 14 December, 1949

The opinion of Mukherjea, J., (with whom Das, J., agreed) was also to the effect that though a business might consist of several operations it is not every operation that would constitute "a part of the business" within the meaning of proviso 3 to Section 5 of the Excess - Profits Tax Act. His Lordship substantially affirmed the view taken by us in 'Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax v. Goculdass Jamnadass & Co.', 1950-18 ITR 217, that profits can be considered to accrue in respect of a part of the business if the apportionment of the total profits and allocation of a portion of such profits to the part in question was possible on any recognised or intelligible principle of mercantile accountancy. Mahajan, J., (with whom Fazl Ali, J., agreed), no doubt quoted with approval the following observation of Tendolkar, J., in the Judgment appealed against:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Secretary, Board Of Revenue ... vs The Madras Export Company on 30 October, 1922

With reference to the business of purchasing and selling goods without any manufacturing process intervening, there are decisions to the effect that profits arise at the place where the contracts of sale are made -- See 'Board of Revenue v. Madras Export Co.,' 46 Mad 360, 'Jiwandas v. Commissioner of Income-tax', 10 Lah 657, 'Sudalaimani Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax', 1941-1 Mad L Jour 99, 'Sri Hardeo Bengal Salt Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1942-10 ITR 13 (Pat) In 're Post Said Salt Association Limited', 59 Cal 1228, 'Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal B. Mehta', ILR(1938) Bom 752, and 'Rahim v. Commissioner of Income-tax', 1949 ITR 258 (cri).
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 Next