Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC485; [1953]23ITR120(SC)
Bose, J. 1. This appeal comes from Bombay. It raises two questions under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The first concerns Rule 5 of schedule II of the Act and the other raises a question about the managing agency commission due to the managing agents of the assessee company. 2. The assessee is the Shree Ram Mills Limited of Bombay. The assessment year is 1945-46 and the accounting year is the calendar year 1944. The Income-tax Officer assessed the profits for income-tax at Rs. 46,18,384 and that is not questioned. 3. The Excess Profits Tax Officer computed the profits, for excess profits tax purposes, at Rs. 46,94,304. In reaching this figure he excluded certain items in the return for determining how the profits increased the capital; for example, he excluded money given away as presents and in charity etc. 4. Now in order to determine the quantum of excess profits tax payable by an assessee it is necessary under the Act to compute, among other things, the average amount of capita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC140; [1953]23ITR152(SC); [1953]4SCR520
Das, J. 1. This appeal arises out of six references made by the Calcutta Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, two of them relating to the income-tax assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45 and the remaining four relating to excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting periods ending on the 31st December of each of the years 1940, 1941 1942 and 1943 respectively. 2. The relevant facts appearing in the statements of the case are as follows : Messrs. Port Said Salt Association Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association') is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and has its registered office there. The Association, however, carries on business in Egypt and its head office is situate in Alexandria where the annual general meetings of its shareholders are held. Not being resident in the United Kingdom the Association pays no British income-tax on its profits. For the purposes of assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC125; (1953)IMLJ597(SC); [1953]4SCR503
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated June 19, 1950, reversing, on appeal, those of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, 24-Parganas, passed in Title Suit No. 53 of 1944. 2. The facts material for our present purpose are not in dispute and the controversy between the parties practically centers round one short point, namely, whether or not the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. The trial court decided this point in favour of the plaintiffs, while the High Court has taken a contrary view in appeal. 3. The subject-matter of dispute is one-third share of shebaiti right in respect of a private debutter dedicated to an idol known by the name of Dakshineshwar Jew and situated at a village called Dhop Dhopi within the district of 24-Parganas in West Bengal. The deity is an ancient one and its reputed founder and first shebait was one Udhab Chandra Pandit. It is not d...
Tag this Judgment!