Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules transfer date determines registration date. Applicants entitled to registration from date of business transfer.</h1> <h3>Copper Rollers Private Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra</h3> Copper Rollers Private Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra - [1975] 36 STC 391 (Bom) Issues Involved:1. Date of Transfer of Business2. Entitlement to Registration Effective Date3. Interpretation of Deeds and Documents4. Applicability of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Date of Transfer of BusinessThe primary issue revolves around determining the exact date on which the business of the partnership firm, Copper Rollers Corporation, was transferred to the applicant-company. The applicants contended that the transfer occurred on 5th November 1965, the date of the indenture of assignment. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal concluded that the transfer took place on 14th June 1965, based on certain recitals in the indenture of assignment.2. Entitlement to Registration Effective DateThe applicants sought registration as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, effective from 5th November 1965. The Sales Tax Officer issued the registration certificate effective from 23rd November 1965. The applicants appealed, asserting that the effective date should be 5th November 1965. The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Commissioner's view that the transfer occurred on 14th June 1965, thus rejecting the applicants' claim for an earlier effective registration date.3. Interpretation of Deeds and DocumentsThe court's determination hinged on the construction of two critical documents: the agreement dated 14th June 1965 and the indenture of assignment dated 5th November 1965. The court emphasized the need to refer to the relevant recitals and clauses of these documents. The agreement dated 14th June 1965 was found to be executory, meaning it was an agreement to transfer the business at a future date, and no assets were transferred at that time. The indenture of assignment dated 5th November 1965 was the operative document that effectively transferred the business, assets, and liabilities to the applicant-company.4. Applicability of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959The applicants claimed entitlement to registration under sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court examined sub-sections (4) and (6) of section 19 and rule 8(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Sub-section (4) requires that the business be transferred or disposed of, resulting in a change in ownership. Sub-section (6) mandates that the successor apply for registration within thirty days of such succession. Rule 8(3) specifies that if the application is made within the prescribed time, the registration takes effect from the date the dealer became liable to pay tax.ConclusionThe court concluded that the business transfer and change in ownership occurred only upon the execution of the indenture of assignment on 5th November 1965. The fact that the indenture referred to an earlier date (14th June 1965) for certain transactions was deemed irrelevant. The operative part of the indenture of assignment was clear and unambiguous, and it prevailed over the recitals. Consequently, the applicants were entitled to registration effective from 5th November 1965.Final JudgmentThe court answered the question submitted in the negative, indicating that the Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the applicants were not entitled to registration effective from 5th November 1965. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs for the reference. The reference was answered in the negative.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found