SRI RAM MAHADEO PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
LAWS(ALL)-1960-9-19
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 01,1960

SRI RAM MAHADEO PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Upadhya, J. - (1.) The questions referred for the opinion of this Court are1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the oil mill is a commercial asset?
(2.) Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case the income arising oat of the letting out of the oil mill is an income from business within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act and hence taxable under the Act? 2. This case relates to assessments under the Excess Profits Tax Act for the chargeable accounting periods ending 12th September 1945 and 31st March 1946. The assessee runs a flour mill and during the chargeable accounting period immediately preceding those in question in this case he constructed an oil mill but instead of running it himself leased it out to Messrs. Krishan Mohan Bhuvan Shah. The rent received was subjected to income-tax under the Income-tax Act and there is no dispute about that assessment. The Excess Profits Tax Officer subjected that Income from lease to tax under the Excess Profits Tax Act, treating it as income from business on which alone excess profits tax could be levied. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was unsuccessful as the learned Assistant Commissioner held that the oil mill was a 'commercial asset' and income therefrom was income within the meaning of the Excess Profits Tax Act. This view was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. At the request of the assessee the questions mentioned above have been referred under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21. of the Excess Profits Tax Act for the opinion of this Court.
(3.) In making the reference the facts set Out in the statement of the case were rather meagre and all the facts which were found or admitted and which would have enabled the Court better to answer the questions referred, were not stated. A supplementary paper-book was therefore submitted on behalf of the assessee which contains copies of the Appellate order of the Tribunal and the two orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relating to the two chargeable accounting periods in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.