Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Pramod Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 1987 cites

Dulichand Lakshminarayan vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Nagpur on 17 February, 1956

8. The fact that the business is taken over by a private limited company does not exclude the operation of Rule 5(8)(d). "Individual" in the context of Sub-clause (d) refers generally to the person taking over the business rather than to the characteristic of the said person. A partner need not necessarily be a natural human being. The word "person" in Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act contemplates both natural and artificial (i.e., legal) persons [vide Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 29 ITR 635 (SC)]. Further, under Section 12(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, the term "individual" can be read in the plural and as such would include a group of individuals also. It need not therefore be limited to a natural human being in its application to Rule 5(8)(d). Moreover, the term "individual" has not been defined in the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 220 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

M. A. Rahman And Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 March, 1961

10. The very object of registration is to carry out and achieve the object of the Act, namely, the levy and collection of tax for purposes of the State, and to make known to the State the persons on whom the liability to pay tax under the Act lies, so that it may realise the tax from them (vide M.A. Rahman v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1471). This purpose will stand defeated if the person who takes over the business of a firm on its dissolution is not bound to apply for fresh registration. The department may then be totally in the dark as to the persons liable for payment of the tax, and the collection process may well nigh stand delayed, if not defeated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 20 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

First Additional Wealth-Tax Officer, ... vs Khan Bahadur Mammed Keyi And Ors. on 17 February, 1964

It was thus held in Wealth-tax Officer v. C.K. Mammed Kayi [1981] 129 ITR 307 (SC) that the expression "individual" in Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 includes within its ambit Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwads also. There is no reason why this term should not therefore be read as comprehending a company also for purpose of Rule 5(S)(d) having regard to the context and the purpose of the said rule. The main ingredient of the sub-clause is the dissolution of the firm. When once there is dissolution, the sub-clause stands attracted. It is immaterial whether the person taking over is an individual or a non-individual.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1