1969 (2) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t years 1960-61 and 1962-63. The Tribunal has found that the assessee-firm plied three lorries during the first year and two lorries during the second which they owned but with their permits not transferred to them but continuing to stand in the names of the original owners. Upon those facts, the Tribunal was of opinion, agreeing with the Commissioner of Income-tax, that inasmuch as the firm opera .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... can no longer be sustained. In that case, which went to the Supreme Court, the view taken by this High Court in Viswanathan v. Shanmugham was that a benamidar of certain motor vehicles, representing himself to be the owner, falsely obtained the permits in his name and allowed the true owner, who had no permit, to conduct the actual business and this was a flagrant violation of the basic requireme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nnot be refused on the ground that was the benamidar of V. We see nothing in the Act which expressly or by implication bars benami transactions or persons owning buses benami and applying for permits on that basis. " The principle of the judgment of the Supreme Court just referred to would clearly be applicable to the instant references. Though the firm was the owner of the lorries and operating .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X