SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Cal) 233

SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
T. I. , M. SALES LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.PALKHIWALA, AJIT KUMAR SEN GUPTA, B.L.PAL, D.PAL

SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS reference under Section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, arises out of 56 applications regarding assessments of T. I. and M. Sales Ltd. , hereinafter called the "indian company", treating it as an agent of a number of non-resident companies. Here we are concerned with eight companies, six of them have been described as "group A" companies, and two as "group B" companies. The Indian company had no direct agreement with the Group "a" companies but had dealings with them by virtue of an agreement with T. I. Export Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the "export Company".

( 2 ) THE Group "b" companies are those with whom the Indian company had direct agreements. When the Tribunal heard the appeal, there were three Group B companies. We now have before us only two of them. The third company, viz. , M/s. Geo Tucker Eyelet Co. Ltd. , has been found by the Tribunal to be non-taxable in India and the Tribunal's decision is accepted by the Department. The Tribunal has also dealt with the consequences of the agreement with the Export company as well. But that does not form the subject-matter of the present reference.

( 3 ) LET us at the outset set out the
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top