” (We have only quoted the portions of s. It was held by this Court in appeal that the Appellate Tribunal was right -in inferring that the appellant knew that it would be able (1) 37 Tax Cases 242. In Venkataswami Naidu’s (3 ) case the appellant firm which acted as managing agents purchased, for a total consideration of Rs. (1) it was pointed out by this Court – that where the question is whether a transaction is in the nature of trade, even if the conclusion of the Tribunal about the characterof the transaction is treated as a conclusion on a question of fact, in arriving it its final conclusion on fact,, proved, the Tribunal has necessarily to address itself to the requirements associated with the concept of trade or business.
The final conclusion of the Tribunal can, therefore, be challenged on the ground that the relevantlegal principles have been misapplied by the Tribunal inreachingits decision on the point and such a challenge is open. 77 with which we are concerned). Pursuant to those provisions, Littlewoods received payment of simple interest, in accordance with the said provisions, in an amount of GBP 268,159,135, corresponding to interest due over about 30 years, which amount exceeds by more than 23% that of the principal sum, which amounts to GBP 204,774,763.
43,887 being the excess realised by the appellant by the two sales over its purchase price was assessable to income tax. As long as the appellant was in possession of the land it made no effort, to cultivate it or erect any superstructure on it but allowed the land to remain unutilised except for the rent received from the house which existed on one of the plots. In that case also, it was contended on behalf of C.
It is for the referring court to determine whether that is so in the case at issue in the main proceedings, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. 499 (3) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in the foregoing sub-sections and section thereto, section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, shall apply in relation to the repeal of any of the laws referred to in section 76 as if the law so repealed had been an enactment within the meaning of section 7 of that Act.
In that regard it should be noted that it is apparent from the order for reference that, under the provisions of section 78 of the VATA 1994, the Commissioners paid Littlewoods interest on the VAT levied in breach of EU law. On a reference, the <a href=" Property Lawyers in India High Court http://lexlords.in/rent-arrears-recovery/”>India High Court Property Advocates Court expressed the same view. 22,160/- from salary and other sources. The question was whether the sum of Rs. The first purchase was made in October, 1941 and the second and subsequent purchases were made in November, 1941, June, 1942 and November.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. But the circumstance of a particular case may lead to the conclusion that the purchase or resale of land is in the nature of trade. It was, held by the Court of Sessions that the initial intention of the respondent to purchase the <a href=" Property Advocates in India Property Advocate in India http://slachd.com/practice-areas/division-of-property-between-husband-and-wife/”>Property Lawyers in High Court with a view to resell did not per se establish that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade and the Com- missioners were justified in treating the profit as not assessable to income tax.
From that decision it follows that it is not any and every kind of aid received from,family funds which taints an income as family income. For the assessment year 1945-46 his estate was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 8,713 four contiguous plots of land adjacent to the place where, the mills of the company managed by it were situated. The first issue is raised by Littlewoods’ cross-appeal, and is whether Vos J and the Court of Appeal were correct in holding that Littlewoods’ claims are excluded by sections 78 and 80 of the 1994 Act, as a matter of English law and without reference to EU law.
If not, then it follows that Littlewoods are free to bring any common law claims available to them without statutory impediment, and do not need to rely on EU law in order to overcome a statutory bar. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant that the properties were bought as an investment and that the plots were acquired for building tenements for the labourers of the mills but came to the conclusion that the transaction was an adventure Famous Property Advocates in India the nature of trade.
One Amritlal died on October 18, 1944. Both parties now appeal to this court. He would not have been appointed treasurer of the bank but for the security given. That contention was negatived by this Court. Therein, one Sheel Chandra who was the karta of his HUF consisting of himself and his younger brother, furnished as security his family properties for being appointed the treasurer of a bank. that the salary earned by Sheel Chandra was a family income and is liable to be taxed as such.
The appellant sold the land to the company managed by it in two lots in September and November, 1947, for a total consideration of Rs. The contention that if a coparcener of a Hindu joint family takes any aid from his family funds in making an acquisition, however, slender that aid might be, the acquisition in question should be considered as a family acquisition, stands repelled by the decision of this Court in Piyare Lal Adishwary Lal’s (3) case.