Skip to content


The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohideen Sahib of Bellary - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in106Ind.Cas.226
AppellantThe Commissioner of Income Tax
RespondentMohideen Sahib of Bellary
Excerpt:
contract act (ix of 1872), section 23 - income, tax act (xi of 1922), section 3--partnership between license-holders of toddy shops with persons not so licensed, legality of--liability of all persons to assessment to income-tax. - .....a body of individuals who have agreed to take in auction, work and share the profits from four toddy shops can be taxed under section 3 of the income tax act on the combined profits of the four shops.'2. the income-tax commissioner finds that there was a body of seven persons who formed a sort of partnership. of these seven persons, four bid and obtained leases of four toddy shops and the profits from those four toddy shops were shared between the seven persons; apparently also all the seven assisted in the working and financing of those shops. on this finding he holds that this association of persons was not an illegal association under the abkari rules, here the petitioner's vakil questions that finding and contends that his client and others have offended against the law in that.....
Judgment:

1. The question referred is, 'Whether a body of individuals who have agreed to take in auction, work and share the profits from four toddy shops can be taxed under Section 3 of the Income Tax Act on the combined profits of the four shops.'

2. The Income-tax Commissioner finds that there was a body of seven persons who formed a sort of partnership. Of these seven persons, four bid and obtained leases of four toddy shops and the profits from those four toddy shops were shared between the seven persons; apparently also all the seven assisted in the working and financing of those shops. On this finding he holds that this association of persons was not an illegal association under the Abkari Rules, Here the petitioner's Vakil questions that finding and contends that his client and others have offended against the law in that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 27 of the General Conditions of those licenses, viz., 'No privilege of supply or vend shall be sold, transferred or sub-rented without Collector's previous permission.' There is no evidence that the license-holders have either sold, transferred or sub-rented the shops which they have taken on lease. It is not, therefore, apparent how that rule has been contravened and, certainly, we cannot presume illegality, in the absence of any evidence of such illegality.

3. The answer, therefore, to the question must be in the affirmative. Costs, including Counsel's fee Rs. 250 to be paid by the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //