Wilcock v Pinto & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1925 |
| Date | 20 February 1925 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
7 cases
-
MACLAINE & Company (as agents for MACLAINE, WATSON & Company ) v ECCOTT (HM INSPECTOR of TAXES)
...Lovell and Christmas v. Commissioners of Taxes ([1908] A.C. 46),Greenwood v. Smidth(4) ([1922] 1 A.C. 417), and Wilcock v. Pinto(5) ([1925] 1 K.B. 30). The decision in Crookston v. The Inland Revenue (1911 S.C. 217; 5 T.C. 602) may probably be supported for the second reason given by the Co......
-
Muller & Company (London) v Lethem ; Muller & Company (London) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...foreigner business, may be either the handling of the goods or the payment of the price in this country. InWilcock v. Pinto & Co.(1) ([1925] 1 K.B. 30) the Court of Appeal held that a firm was exercising a trade in England, where the contracts were made and the price was payable for them in......
-
W.H. Muller and Company (London)Ltd v Lethem (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...foreigner business, may be either the handling of the goods or the payment of the price in this country. InWilcock v. Pinto & Co.(1) ([1925] 1 K.B. 30) the Court of Appeal held that a firm was exercising a trade in England, where the contracts were made and the price was payable for them in......
-
G.H (Trinidad) Ltd v The Board of Inland Revenue
...8 T.C. 196; [1922] A.C. 417; 38 T.L.R. 421. (6) Maclaine & Co. v. Eccott, (1924) 10 T.C. 111; 132 LT 173. (7) Wilcock v. Pinto & Co., 9 T.C. 111; [1925] 1 K.B. 30; 69 Sol. Jo. 178. (8) Bennett v. Marshal 22 T.C. 73; [1938] 1 K.B. 591; [1938] 1 All E.R. 93. (9) British Sugar Manufacturers v.......
Get Started for Free