Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1722; [1964]53ITR140(SC); [1964]7SCR693
Subba Rao, J.1. These two appeals by special leave raise the question whether the estate duty paid by the resident Company, hereinafter called the assessee, incorporated outside India, on behalf of members not domiciled in India is deductible from its profits in computing its assessable income under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act.2. The material facts are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated. The assessee is a resident Company incorporated outside India. Most of its shareholders are in the United Kingdom. During the accounting period ending March 31, 1955, it paid Pounds 1,302-9-4 and Pounds 1,303 towards estate duty which was payable on the death of certain shareholders who were not domiciled in India. The assessee debited the said amount to revenue in its accounts in ascertaining the profits and gains of its business for the said year. Similarly, for the accounting year ending March 31, 1956, it paid a sum of Pounds 3,809-1-5 towa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1761; [1964]51ITR345(SC); [1964]5SCR590
Shah, J. 1. Henry Gannon who was a registered holder of 2674 shares of Gannon Dunkerley & Company - a private Limited Company with its registered office in Bombay - died on May 13, 1945, having made and published a will disposing of his extensive estate in the United Kingdom and in British India. The National Bank of India Ltd. obtained probate of Gannon's will in the United Kingdom and appointed the respondent James Anderson its attorney to administer the estate in British India. Anderson applied for and obtained in India on August 14, 1946, Letters of Administration 'durante obsentia' to the estate of Gannon in British India. 450 out of the shares were specifically bequeathed by Gannon to certain legatees, and in the course of administration, share certificates with transfer forms duly executed were delivered to the legatees in respect of those shares and no question arises in this appeal in regard to those shares. 2. By agreement dated August 14, 1946, between the executor to the es...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC549; 1970CriLJ707; (1970)1SCC152; [1970]2SCR760
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 113 and 163 of 1969. Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1969 of Madras High Court in Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 469 and 621 of 1969. A. K. Sen, N. C. Raghavachari, W. S. Setharaman and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant (in Cr.A. No. 113 of 1969). M. C. Setalvad, N. C. Raghavachari, W. S. Setharaman and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 163 of 1969). Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General, R. H. Dhebar, B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents (in both the appeals). The Judgment of SIKRI, RAY and JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, JJ. was delivered by REDDY J. MITTER and HEGDE, JJ. delivered dissenting Opinions. Jagamohan Reddy, J. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, filed a complaint on February 16, 1969 before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras against Lennart Schussler, accused 1, and M. R. Pratap, accused 2, Managing Director, The Rayala Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as A.1 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC795; [1967]63ITR300(SC); [1967]1SCR777
Shah, J.1. By a resolution dated August 23, 1952, it was resolved to wind up the respondent company and to appoint a liquidator for that purpose. The paid-up capital of the assessee was Rs. 25 lakhs, and on the date of commencement of winding up it had an accumulated profit of Rs. 5,34,041. From time to time the liquidator distributed the assets in his hands among the shareholders. The following table sets out the distributions made by the liquidator : ---------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment year Distribution Date of Amount per share distribution distributed Rs. Rs.---------------------------------------------------------------------1953-54 .. .. .. 600 9-9-1952 15,00,000Do .. .. .. 90 25-9-1952 2,25,0001954-55 .. .. .. 60 10-11-1952 1,50,000Do .. .. .. 30 6-5-1953 75,000Do .. .. .. 30 23-2-1953 75,0001955-56 .. .. .. 80 10-11-1953 2,00,000---------------------------------------------------------------------Out of the distribution made on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC866; [1966]59ITR711(SC); [1966]2SCR579
Shah, J.1. The appellant is a private trust, and was within the meaning of s. 4A and 4B of the Income tax Act, 1922 resident and ordinarily resident within British India in 1948. The appellant held 1,000 shares in an investment company styled Home Mehta and Sons Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Company') which carried on the business of investing in shares in companies registered in British India and in the former Indian States. Dividends from the British Indian companies were received by the Company at its registered office at Bombay, and dividends from the Indian States' companies were received by the Company at its registered office at Billimora in the State of Baroda. 2. In the calendar years 1948 and 1949 the appellant received at Billimora Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 2,10,000 respectively as dividend in respect of share held by it in the Company. The 2nd Income tax Officer, A-I Ward, Bombay, upheld the claim of the appellant that its dividend income received from the Company at Billimora had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1421; [1965]56ITR234(SC); [1965]1SCR990
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad holding that the Income-tax Officer, in the circumstances of the case, went wrong in initiating proceedings under s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act, in respect of the assessment year 1942-43. 2. The facts may briefly be stated. The assessee was a holder of an impartible estate in the district of Ajmer. On March 25, 1944, the Income-tax Officer assessed him to income-tax for the year 1942-43. On April 5, 1945, on the ground that two items of the assessee's income, namely, syar (forest) income and interest income, were not included in the original assessment, a notice under s. 34 of the Act was issued to him. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a return wherein he disclosed fully and completely the particulars of his interest income, but raised the plea that his forest income was not taxable. The I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1113; [1966]60ITR156(SC); [1966]2SCR881
Sikri, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a reference made to it by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1929 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court : 'Whether, on the facts of the case and having regard to the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Taxation Laws (Merged States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1949, and clause 8 of the Agreement made on 20th September, 1938, between the assessee and the State of Bhopal, the correct basis for computing the written down value of the depreciable assets as at 1-11-1948 is the one which is adopted by the Income Tax Officer or the one adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. The relevant facts are these. The respondent, M/s Straw Products Ltd., Bhopal, hereinafter called the assessee, is a public limited company. It was incorporated in the erstwhile State of B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC719; [1961]43ITR352(SC); [1962]2SCR871
S.K. Das, J.1. These three appeals, with special leave of this Court, have been heard together. They arise out of three Income-tax References made to the High Court of Bombay, namely, Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1957, Income-tax Reference No. 30 of 1957 and Income-tax Reference No. 37 of 1957. The facts are similar in the three cases and the question of law which the High Court had to answer was the same in each of the cases. the High Court gave its answer in its leading judgment in Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1957, and the other two References were disposed of in accordance with that answer. For the purposes of these appeals, it would be enough if we state the facts of Reference No. 29 and then indicate the question which arose for decision and the answer which the High Court gave to it. 2. One Nanalal Haridas was the karta of a Hindu undivided family which admittedly was the beneficiary of 1842 shares in a company called the Cotton Export and Import Limited (hereinafter referre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC124; [1967]66ITR604(SC); [1967]3SCR798
Shah, J. 1. In Sundaram & Company (Private) Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - - the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of s. 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In dealing with the assessment of income of the Company for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1951-52, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Madras, passed orders under s. 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and directed that the total income of the Company as determined in the years of assessment less tax payable be deemed to have been distributed amongst the shareholders of the Company as on the relevant dates of the General Body Meetings. The following table sets out the relevant details : Assessment year. Amount of dividend Date of order passeddeemed to have under s. 23A deemingbeen declared. dividendto have been declared.-------------------------------------------------------------------1946-47 46,563 March 18, 19521947-48 43,959 --do--1948-49 47,829 --do--1949-50 97,875 --do--1950-51 92,59...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1961]42ITR112(SC)
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal is by Gouri Prasad Bagaria and others in respect of the assessment of their father, Hanuman Prasad Bagaria, who died after the grant of special leave to him by this court. It will be convenient to refer to Hanuman Prasad Bagaria as the assessee, and his legal representatives as the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated December 14, 1955, in an income-tax reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The High Court answered the question : 'Whether, on the above facts and circumstances of this case, there was any material before before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee purchased gold in the year 1918 which he sold in the year under consideration and the sum of Rs. 72,523 represents the sale proceeds the sale proceeds of such gold ?' in the negative. 2. The facts of the case are simple. For the assessment year 1945-46 corresponding to the financial year 1944-45 the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!