TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Clarification on Tax Assessment Criteria for Inter-State Sales</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi Versus PM Rathod And Company</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi Versus PM Rathod And Company - [1959] 37 ITR 145, [1959] 10 STC 493 (SC) Issues:Determining the place of receipt of income, profits, and gains for taxation purposes in the context of goods sold in different states.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against the High Court's decision regarding the assessment of income, profits, and gains for a firm of manufacturers of perfumery and hair oils. The central issue is to ascertain where the income was received to determine the applicable tax rates for Part B States. The firm operated by sending goods to customers through V. P. P. or rail, with payments received in different states.The Income-tax Officer initially assessed the firm at rates applicable to Part A and C States, considering most sales and payments were made in these states. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal subsequently adjusted the estimated profits. The Tribunal differentiated between income received through V.P.P. and rail, concluding that certain payments were received in Ratlam, a Part B State, and others in Part A or C States.The High Court, in response to referred questions, ruled in favor of the firm, leading to an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The judgment extensively discusses the V.P.P. system, emphasizing that payments made through this system are considered received by the seller at the place of delivery against payment. The judgment also addresses the rail delivery method, asserting that payments received by the bank as the seller's agent constitute income in the states where the payments were made.The judgment cites legal principles from previous cases to support the conclusion that income, profits, and gains from both V.P.P. and rail transactions were received in Part A or C States, not in Ratlam. The judgment reiterates that the firm is not entitled to the concessional tax rates applicable to Part B States due to the nature of the transactions. Ultimately, the appeal is allowed, and the firm is directed to bear the costs of the appeal.In summary, the judgment clarifies the tax assessment criteria based on the location of income receipt for goods sold in different states, emphasizing the legal principles governing transactions through V.P.P. and rail delivery methods. The decision underscores the significance of determining the place of income receipt to apply appropriate tax rates, ultimately ruling in favor of the Commissioner of Income-tax based on the specific circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 