https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276866 The appellants were agents, not servants, because the agency arrangement vested them with general conduct and management of the company's business, including contractual authority, staff control, sub-delegation and limited dealings with the company, subject only to overall supervision by directors. The commission basis of remuneration and the power to assign the agency were inconsistent with a contract of service. Their continuous and organised managerial activities amounted to carrying on business, since business is not confined to dealings with multiple principals. The remuneration therefore constituted income, profits or gains from business and was liable to excess profits tax. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:12:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276866 The appellants were agents, not servants, because the agency arrangement vested them with general conduct and management of the company's business, including contractual authority, staff control, sub-delegation and limited dealings with the company, subject only to overall supervision by directors. The commission basis of remuneration and the power to assign the agency were inconsistent with a contract of service. Their continuous and organised managerial activities amounted to carrying on business, since business is not confined to dealings with multiple principals. The remuneration therefore constituted income, profits or gains from business and was liable to excess profits tax. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276866