| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 586 1969 SLD 586 (1969) 74 ITR 282 |
Chancery Division
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
LORD DONOVAN, HARMAN AND WIDGERY L.JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
LORD DONOVAN, HARMAN AND WIDGERY L.JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
J.G. Ingram & Son Ltd.
v.
Callaghan (Inspector of Taxes)
Law:
Section:
- Sections 342 and 127(1) - Income-tax Act, 1951 CASES REFERRED TO Bell v. National Provincial Bank of England Ltd. [1904] 1 KB 149 ; (CA), Briton Ferry Steel Co. Ltd. v. Barry [1941] 9 ITR (Supp.) 122 (CA), Edwards v. Bairstow & Harrison [1955] 28 ITR 579 (HL), Gladstone Development Co. Ltd. v. Strick [1948] 30 TC 131, Gordon & Blair Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1962] SC 267 ; 40 TC 358, Hillerns & Fowler v. Murray [1932] 17 TC 77 (CA), Kirk & Randall Ltd. v. Dunn [1924] 8 TC 663, Laycock v. Freeman Hardy & Willis Ltd. [1939] 7 ITR 237, Tryka Ltd. v. Newall [1963] 41 TC 146, Gordon & Blair Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1962] SC 267 and Graham v. Green [1925] 2 KB 37. H.H. Monroe and J.E. Holroyd Pearce for the Taxayers. Desmond Miller and J. Raymond Phillips for the Crown. JUDGMENT (APPENDIX) March 11, 12 of 1968 Goff, J.-This is a case in which the taxpayer company, J.G. Ingram & Son Ltd., carried on for a good many years a successful business in the manufacture and sale of surgical and pharmaceutical products having glass and rubber parts. Owing to the fact that plastics and comparable products became not only a possible substitute for the rubber, but something which was both cheaper and more durable, and therefore clearly better, the taxpayers fell into difficulties and suffered serious losses, so much so, that a receiver was appointed and he sold the taxpayers' factory, completion taking place in September, 1960. In the meantime, the taxpayers' shares had been acquired in May, 1960, by Redland Holdings Ltd., a public company with many subsidiaries and diverse interests. The commissioners found that Redland intended to extend its interests into the field of plastics and had for that reason recently acquired a company, Tuck & Co. Ltd. There was a space in Tuck's factory premises at Hainault, and Redland caused three-quarters of the taxpayers' machinery to be moved to Hainault, the remainder being sold, and thereafter the company continued its business at Hainault. [His Lordship read paragraph 7 of the case stated, and continued : ] It does not appear that Martindill or anyone else ever acquired any plant other…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492