Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.99 seconds)The Bombay Abkari Act, 1878
Section 26A in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs Laxmi Trading Company. on 25 June, 1953
18. The assertion that is now sought to be made by the revenue in the present case is that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Himatsingka v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bagyalakshmi and Co. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Abdul Rahim and Co. and that of the Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmi Trading Company [1953] 24 ITR 173 (Punj) are not applicable to the present case as there is an absolute prohibition under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, 1316 Fasli, read with Rule 23 of 1353 Fasli with regard to the carrying on of the business in liquor and to share profits in the business without the requisite permission of the State Government, and Section 14 is enacted in furtherance of the public policy because the supply and production of liquor is regulated by the Government and also for the collection of public revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sheonarayan Harnarayan on 5 December, 1972
In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sheonarayan Harnarayan [l975] 100 ITR 213 (MP), it was held that mere intimation of partnership to the Collector was not sufficient under Rule VI of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Rules which requires a written permission to the Collector endorsed on the licence. Therefore, the partnership formed in contravention of that provision was held to be void ab initio. All the decisions relied upon by the revenue are applicable only if it is found as a fact that the sub-partnership had carried on the business of liquor, tobacco, opium or any other prohibited article without the requisite permission of the State Government or the Collector, as the case may be. The business in liquor, opium, tobacco and other prohibited articles requires the specific permission of the State Government and the District Collector and the business can only be done in those prohibited items by persons who obtain specific licence for the same. The requirement of a specific licence by the person or persons who conduct such business is a condition precedent as persons other than licensees or permit holders are specifically prohibited on grounds of public policy from conducting such business. The pertinent question that arises in the present case is whether the sub-partnership has intended to do and in fact did business in liquor in the accounting year. If the sub-partnership also had indulged in the business of liquor without the requisite licence in the name of the sub-partnership or in the names of all the partners of the sub-partnership, the sub-partnership, on the application of the principles referred to above, must be held to be void ab initio and non est as it intended to do business in liquor without the requisite licence. If, on the other hand, the business of the sub-partnership is not the sale of liquor or dealing in liquor or doing anything in connection with the purchase and sale of liquor in any manner, it cannot be said that those sub-partnerships are illegal and void and non est. We, therefore, have to look to the object and intendment of the sub-partnership as indicated from the several clauses of the deed of sub-partnership and the other material on record. Though the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were of the view that the business of the sub-partnership is also the business of the main partnership, viz., Nizamabad Sendhi Group, which admittedly obtained licence and did business in liquor during the accounting year in question, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the final fact finding authority, did not agree with the department's view. We may in this context notice the following facts found by the Tribunal in its order at pages 68 and 69 of the printed book :
Lalchand Mohan Lal Fazilka vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab. on 22 March, 1967
The decision of Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Benarsi Das & Co. [1962] 44 ITR 835 (Punj) and in Lalchand Mohan Lal Fazilka v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 65 ITR 418 (Punj) and that of the Orissa High Court in Mohapatra Bhandar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 58 ITR 671 (Orissa) pertains to the Opium Act.
Mahapatra Bhandar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 December, 1964
The decision of Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Benarsi Das & Co. [1962] 44 ITR 835 (Punj) and in Lalchand Mohan Lal Fazilka v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 65 ITR 418 (Punj) and that of the Orissa High Court in Mohapatra Bhandar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 58 ITR 671 (Orissa) pertains to the Opium Act.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pagoda Hotel And Restaurant on 23 November, 1970
The decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant and in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sheonarayan Harnarayan [1965] 100 ITR 213 (MP) are in respect of liquor business where a licence was granted in-the name of an individual to carry on business in liquor and he entered into a partnership with another person, and such partnership was held to be void in so far as it related to liquor business.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Bagyalakshmi & Co., Udamalpet on 4 November, 1964
18. The assertion that is now sought to be made by the revenue in the present case is that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Himatsingka v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bagyalakshmi and Co. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Abdul Rahim and Co. and that of the Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmi Trading Company [1953] 24 ITR 173 (Punj) are not applicable to the present case as there is an absolute prohibition under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, 1316 Fasli, read with Rule 23 of 1353 Fasli with regard to the carrying on of the business in liquor and to share profits in the business without the requisite permission of the State Government, and Section 14 is enacted in furtherance of the public policy because the supply and production of liquor is regulated by the Government and also for the collection of public revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad vs A. Abdul Rahim & Co., Baroda on 4 November, 1964
18. The assertion that is now sought to be made by the revenue in the present case is that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Himatsingka v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bagyalakshmi and Co. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Abdul Rahim and Co. and that of the Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmi Trading Company [1953] 24 ITR 173 (Punj) are not applicable to the present case as there is an absolute prohibition under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, 1316 Fasli, read with Rule 23 of 1353 Fasli with regard to the carrying on of the business in liquor and to share profits in the business without the requisite permission of the State Government, and Section 14 is enacted in furtherance of the public policy because the supply and production of liquor is regulated by the Government and also for the collection of public revenue.