COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE TRAVANCORE COCHIN AND COORG BANGALORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE Vs. INDO MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED PANGAL VITTAL NAYAK AND CO LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1959-2-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
February 23,1959
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MYSORE,TRAVANCORE COCHIN AND COORG,BANGALORE,THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE
Appellant
VERSUS
INDO MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
THE INDO MERCANTILE BANK LTD.,V. PANGAL VITTAL NAYAK AND CO. [AFFIRMED]ANGLO FRENCH TEXTILE COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [FOLLOWED IN THE PROVISO (1) TO S. 24(1) {CORRESPONDING TO PROVISO TO S. 32(1) OF THE TRAVANCORE ACT)]
Cited Judgements :-
CALCUTTA PINJRAPOLE SOCIETY VS. HABU CHANDRA CHOSE ALIAS HABU CHARAN GHOSE [LAWS(CAL)-1970-7-22] [REFERRED TO]SREE HANUMAN INVESTMENT CO LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1962-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH TYAGI AND 25 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-254] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDO GULF FERTILIZERS LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-199] [REFERRED TO]
D. MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
K SRINIVAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2007-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
APRAJITA KUMARI AND ORS VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-641] [REFERRED TO]
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co LTD VS. Reserve Bank of India [LAWS(CAL)-1995-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYANAND VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2000-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
P.N. SHUKLA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-208] [REFERRED TO]
JAYNTIBHAI GANDABHAI PATEL VS. GUJARAT RURAL HOUSING BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-84] [REFERRED]
NAHAR HIRASINGH VS. DUKALHIN [LAWS(MPH)-1973-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
JOHNY VS. EXCISE INSPECTOR [LAWS(KER)-1999-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
HARNAM SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
KHAN CHAND TILOKA RAM VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1966-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [LAWS(SC)-1985-1-27] [RELIED ON]
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. HOTEL MOUNT HEERA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-173] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. HOTEL MOUNT HEERA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-173] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV CHOWDHRIE HUF VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY GUPTA S/O JAGARNATH GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
U.P.S.R.T.C. VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR VERMA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
MARYBONG AND KYEL TEA ESTATE LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1974-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
JAYDIPSINH PRABHATSINH JHALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
APRAJITA KUMARI VS. JOINT DIRECTOR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH KUMAR AGARWAL VS. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-239] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-195] [REFERRED TO]
GOLAM HUSSAIN BHET AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-1985-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUBHAS BHOWMIK @ BABAN & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
SYED KHAIRUL ANAM SAMSUDDIN VS. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY REPRESENT-ED BY THE REGISTRAR [LAWS(GAU)-2013-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTHA NAGANNA CHETTY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANDHRA PRADESH HYERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1969-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
B SUDHAKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1994-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
R P G INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-2011-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KRISHNA KAUL VS. LT GOVERNOR N C T OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-227] [REFERRED TO]
NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING CO LTD VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), LTU, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
VOLTAS LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
LAVJIBHAI AMARSIBHAI BHALODIYA VS. MEHMOODABEN SIC RAJABSHA @ RAJUBHAI ABDULSHA RATHOD [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-255] [REFERRED TO]
MANJUNATH VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. HARYANA ORGANICS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD VS. MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
HYMAVATHI K V VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR [LAWS(KER)-2008-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS VS. P M MUTHURAMAN CHETTIAR [LAWS(SC)-1962-1-15] [REFERRED]
R MOORTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-467] [REFERRED]
RAMVATI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA GIRNI KAMGAR UNION VS. SMT. S. BHATTARCHARJI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-1986-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
HPL (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS. VS. QRG ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
TOGURU SUDHAKAR REDDY AND VS. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1991-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-169] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA RATTAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2001-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI VS. KHANDWA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-1997-5-12] [REFERRED]
POORANCHAND VED PRAKASH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1972-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
BORDER SECURITY FORCE B S F VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-1988-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2015-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
ITTIRAVI NAMBOODIRI VS. KRISHNANKUTTY MENON [LAWS(KER)-1964-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
TARSEM KUMAR VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-1972-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
BISESWARLAL KHANDELWALLA VS. BARIPADA, MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(ORI)-1973-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
INDO FLOGATES LIMITED & ANR VS. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, ORISSA & ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1992-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
ROHITASH KUMAR VS. OM PRAKASH SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2012-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
KUL BHUSHAN MISHRA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
KONDIBA VS. GAJANAN [LAWS(BOM)-1972-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH MURARKA VS. K. GEET SRIJAN [LAWS(CHH)-2015-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA S/O HIRALAL KALE VS. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHAWADA UNIVERSITY, AURANGABAD THROUGH [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-201] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CAREW AND CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1971-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
J SEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
ABIDA KHATOON SMT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-1971-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
T SUDHAKAR REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1991-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
STAR INDIA P LTD VS. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-217] [REFERRED TO]
D K MARU VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA ORGANICS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-10-14] [REFERRED]
C RAMU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-171] [REFERRED TO]
PONDS INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
DURGABAI DESHMUKH MEMORIAL SR. SEC. SCHOOL VS. J. A. J. VASU SENA [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-90] [REFERRED TO]
MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
K KALIAPERUMAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-156] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANI VANASPATI LIMITED VS. SALES TAX OFFICER CUTTACK I CENTRAL CIRCLE [LAWS(ORI)-1998-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI VS. CHUNI LAL MOONGA RAM DELHI [LAWS(SC)-1961-5-4] [APPLIED]
NARENDRA NATH SIROTHIA VS. VICE [LAWS(ALL)-1984-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
TYPE FOUNDRY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1961-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
NISHITENDU DHAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1995-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHNAZ AYURVEDICS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE : U.P. RASHTRIYA CHINI MILL ADHIKARI PARISHAD AND 4 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1994-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH FARUQ SHABIR VS. GOVINDRAO RAMU VASAVE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-143] [REFERRED TO]
K SRINIVAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2007-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED, NEW DELHI VS. UTTAR PRADESH STATE LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE, LUCKNOW AND NATIONAL LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE, NEW DELHI [LAWS(APTE)-2012-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
IVRCL-KBL (JV) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2016-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
Shankerlal Chaubey VS. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur [LAWS(MPH)-1963-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHCHANDERA PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1990-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-379] [REFERRED TO]
E.R. SITARAMA REDDIAR VS. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1966-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY VS. SANGAMESH PATIL A. [LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-146] [REFERRED TO]
K R KURUP VS. S T A T [LAWS(KER)-1989-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA N.SHAH [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA MAHESH D PATHAK NITIN D WAKANKAR NAVNEET GOEL S VENKATESWAR DINESH KUMAR SINGH ROHIT CHOUDHARY ANIL KANT R MANJUNATHASWAMY ARUN KUMAR RAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1991-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD VS. DWARKA DAS SARAF [LAWS(SC)-1975-8-3] [RELIED ON]
JIJO VS. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM [LAWS(KER)-2017-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD USMAN ALIAS BHAI LAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-242] [REFERRED TO]
SAKHARAM NARAYAN KHERDEKAR VS. CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-1962-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. MANEESH PIPES PVT LTD [LAWS(CHH)-2018-9-153] [REFERRED TO]
OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1959-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL VS. SOORAJMUL NAGARMALL [LAWS(CAL)-1978-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
BAYER CORPORATIONANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
TARA DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
AMBAJI PHYSIOTHERAPY COLLEGE MANAGED BY AMBAJI EDUCATION VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-124] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN PAL SINGH AND ORS. VS. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-287] [REFERRED TO]
M/S WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-349] [REFERRED TO]
PREMNATH DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1968-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR GOPALBHAI PATEL VS. CHISTI VASIMUDIN KHURSHIDBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-12-264] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD VS. KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND LTD [LAWS(SC)-1960-4-14] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAJINDRA SAREEN [LAWS(SC)-1971-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
SHARMA AGRO INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2014-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA SAHRAWAT AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-234] [REFERRED TO]
AYYAPPAN VS. SREEDHARAN NAMBOODIRI [LAWS(KER)-1967-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD VS. TARUN PAL SINGH & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2017-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
OOMMEN THOMAS PANICKER VS. MONICA CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
LEELAVATHI S VS. MURGESH [LAWS(KAR)-2010-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH JITENDRAKUMAR SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-275] [REFERRED TO]
N.S. DATTA VS. THE VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1983-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
IN MATTER OF PRASAR BHARATI VS. M/S. STRACON INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAYDIPSINH PRABHATSINH JHALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-12-244] [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1982-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT SHIKSHAN PRASARK MANDAL THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-257] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH CHHABRA VS. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-318] [REFERRED TO]
KALLOOMAL SAMALDAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [LAWS(MPH)-1980-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1974-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. MADHUKAR KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-278] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGA RAJESWARA SETHUPATHI R VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-1965-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA AIDED L.P. & U.P. SCHOOL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. (RRVPNL), VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH SECRETARY, ENERGY, SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
G. PADMANABHAN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-266] [REFERRED TO]
THE TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1980-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CASIO INDIA CO. PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAPALAYAM MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [LAWS(SC)-1978-10-19] [RELIED ON]
SMT. SADHNA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA BHADAURIA VS. MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-120] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL DASS KHATURIA VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATETRIBUNAL U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1971-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD VS. NBCC (INDIA) LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-275] [REFERRED TO]
DEBDAS BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
AKHTARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
RUBU OPO VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2019-3-123] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IV [LAWS(DLH)-2008-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN CHAND ASHOK KUMAR AND COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-1990-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2014-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAMGOPAL KANIYALAL [LAWS(MPH)-1959-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
Rakesh Mishra VS. Jiwaji University [LAWS(MPH)-1993-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
W 3 INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD VS. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1990-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
ADANI GAS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-7-40] [REFERRED TO]
CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM VS. K J MATHEW [LAWS(KER)-1967-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANA PARTAP CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PANDEY VS. LT. COL GIRJIA SHANKAR MUNGALI [LAWS(UTN)-2020-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
GOKULANANDA MOHANTY AND ORS. VS. MURALIDHAR MALLIK [LAWS(ORI)-1978-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL MUNSHI LAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX NEW DELHI [LAWS(P&H)-1960-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
KIHOTO HOLLOHAN VS. ZACHILLHU [LAWS(SC)-1992-2-71] [RELIED ON]
JUDGEMENT
J.L.KAPUR -
(1.)THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.)THESE two appeals by special leave raise a common question of law, and that is, whether business losses incurred in the erstwhile State of Cochin could, under the Income-tax Act of Travancore, be set off against the business profits made in the erstwhile State of Travancore. In Appeal No. 260/ 58 a further question arose whether in the case of that assessee the year ending 30/06/1949, was the previous year for the assessment year 1950-51 with the result that it should be assessed under the Indian Income- tax Act of 1922. But this question was not answered by the High court which confined itself to answering the first question which was common to both the appeals. The appellant before us in both the appeals is the Commissioner of Income-tax and the respondents are the two assessees, in one case a Bank and the other a private limited company. The main argument has been confined to the question of applicability of s. 32(1) and the first proviso to that section of the Travancore Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Travancore Act).
In C. A. No. 259/58 the assessee is a public limited company incorporated in the State of Cochin with branches in that State as well as in what was British India and in Travancore State. It filed its incometax return showing an income of Rs. 11,872.00 for the assessment year 1948-49, its accounting year being the previous calendar year. The Income-tax Officer determined its assessable income to be Rs. 90,947.00 representing only the profit it made in Travancore State and under s. 32(1) proviso(1) of the Travancore Act he refused a deduction of Rs. 79,275.00 shown as loss from branches situate outside the State of Travancore, in British India and other Indian States. The assessee's appeal to the Income-tax Commissioner was unsuccessful but the Appellate tribunal held that the banking business of the assessee being one and indivisible for the purpose of determining the amount assessable to income-tax it was entitled to deduct the losses incurred outside Travancore State from the profits accruing and arising in that State. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax the following question was referred to the High court of Travancore-Cochin:Is the aforesaid sum of Rs. 79,275.00 a loss of the assessee arising outside the Travancore State for purpose of the first proviso to section 32(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act This question was slightly modified by the High court 260 which after referring to several decided cases answered the question in favour of the assessee.
In C. A. 260/58 the assessee is a private limited company with its registered office in the former Cochin State. It was carrying on business at its head office in Cochin State and it also carried on business in -Travancore State. The assessment was made under the Travancore Act and relates to the previous year ending 30/06/1949, the assessment year being 1950-51. The assesse made a profit in Travancore State and incurred a loss in the State of Cochin and sought to deduct this loss from the profit of Travancore State thus showing a net profit of Rs. 2,643.00. This was not allowed by the Income-tax Officer and on appeal this order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate tribunal also did not accept the submissions of the assessee and upheld the order of assessment. On an application of the assessee the following question was referred to the High court of Travancore-Cochin:' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the loss of Rs. 27,709.00 arising in Cochin State could be set off against the profit of Rs. 38,998.00 arising in Travancore State ? ' and was answered in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner has come up in appeal pursuant to special leave against both these judgments.
It may be stated that the relevant S. of the Travancore Act which govern the two appeals are identically worded with those of the Indian Incometax Act of 1922 (to be called the Indian Act). The corresponding S. are as follows:JUDGEMENT_713_AIR(SC)_1959Html1.htm
It is only necessary to set out s. 32(1) of the Travancore Act and the proviso which correspond to s. 24(1) and proviso (i) of the Indian Act and which are necessary for the decision of the appeals before us: S.32(1) ' Where any assessee sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in Section 9 (Section 6) he shall be entitled to have the amount of loss set off against this income, profits or gains under any other head in that year: Provided that where the loss sustained is a loss of profits or gains which would but for the loss have accrued or arisen within British India or in an Indian State and would under the provisions of clause (e) of Ss. (2) of Section 18 (Section 14(2)(c) ), have been exempted from tax, such loss shall not be set off except against profits or gains accruing or arising within British India or in an Indian State and exempt from tax under the said provisions '. (Sections in brackets are the corresponding S. of the Indian Act). So the only difference between the two S. is that in the proviso to s. 24(1) of the Indian Act instead of the words 'an Indian State' the words 'British India or in an Indian State ' have to be substituted. The question for decision is as to how this proviso is to be construed. Ordinarily the effect of an excepting or a qualifying proviso is to carve something out of the preceding enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be in it and such a proviso cannot be construed as enlarging the scope of an enactment when it can be fairly and properly construed without attributing to it that effect. Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada (1). But it has been held that a section framed as a proviso to a preceding section may sometimes contain matter which is in substance a fresh enactment adding and not merely qualifying that which goes before. Rhondda Urban council v. Taff Vale Railway (2).
(3.)IT was argued on behalf of the Revenue that this proviso falls in the second category and takes the present cases out of s. 32(1) of the Travancore Act and imposes a liability to tax on the profits or gains arising in that State, disallowing a deduction of the losses in British India and in States other than Travancore State against profits made in Travancore State: Rhondda Urban council v. Taff Vale Railway (1) and Harrison v. Ward (2). IT may be mentioned that in the majority of cases decided in India the proviso to s. 24(1) of the Indian Act has been construed in a manner contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue.
In order to determine the true meaning of the words of the proviso it is necessary and convenient to refer to the scheme of the Indian Act which is admitted by the parties to be same as that of the Travancore Act. From 1922 to 1939 in order to be taxable income, profits and gains had to be received or had to accrue in British India. In 1939 the idea of 'total world income' was introduced and the definition of 'total income' was modified by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act (VII of 1939) which also made consequential changes in other S. of the Indian Act. Under s. 2(15) of the Act total income' was defined to mean the total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in that Act. The 'total world income' was defined as including all income, profits and gains wherever accruing or arising except income to which the Act did not apply. Section 3 provided for the charge of incometax in respect of the total income of the previous year. Under s. 4 the total income of any previous year of any person who was resident included all income, profits and gains from whatever source derived but (i) it must accrue or arise to him during the year in British India or (ii) accrue or arise to him without British India during such year. The third clause is not necessary for this appeal. Section 4(3) provided what income, profits or gains were not to be included in the total income of the person receiving them. Both under the Indian Act and under the Travancore Act there were six heads of income chargeable to income tax. In the Indian Act they were set out in s. 6 as follows:S. 6 ' Save as otherwise provided by this Act the following heads of income, profits and gains shall be chargeable to income-tax in the manner hereinafter appearing, namely:(iv) Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation. Then followed ss. 7 to 12B laying down the method of computation of the income arising from each head.
In 1941 during the war an exemption was given for the purpose of taxability to any income, profits or gains which accrued or arose within what was then called Indian States but which were not received or brought into British India. This was done by s. 8 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1941 (XXIII of 1941) by which another clause (c) was added to s. 14(2) which was as follows: ' The tax shall not be payable by an assessee: (c)in respect of any income, profits or gains accruing or arising to him within (an Indian State) unless such income, profits or gains are received or deemed to be received in or are brought into the Indian State in the previous year by or on behalf of the assessee or are assessable under section 12B or section 42'. Thus income, profits or gains arising under any of the heads under s. 6 became exempted in circumstances above-mentioned but the effect of this exemption was not to exclude such income of an assessee for all purposes as was the case under s. 4(3). Such sums were to be taken,into account for the purpose of determining the rate -under s. 16 of the Indian Act. A further consequential change was made in, s. 24(1) by the addition of the first proviso and a similar addition was made in the Travancore Act to s. 32(1) which has already been quoted and it is this proviso which is the subjectmatter of controversy between the parties. A review of the various S. and enactments shows that during 1922-1939 the tax was leviable on income, profits and gains arising or accruing to an assessee in British India. In 1939 the total income became taxable subject to exclusions in sub-s. 3 of s. 4 and the chargeability of the 'total income' was laid down in s. 3. In 1941 income, profits or gains which a resident made in an Indian State and in the case of Travancore State income, profits or gains which a resident made in British India or other Indian States were exempted from payment ofincome-tax unless received or brought into the respective territories, but this income, profits or gains had to be included for the purpose of calculating the rate.
;
(2.)THESE two appeals by special leave raise a common question of law, and that is, whether business losses incurred in the erstwhile State of Cochin could, under the Income-tax Act of Travancore, be set off against the business profits made in the erstwhile State of Travancore. In Appeal No. 260/ 58 a further question arose whether in the case of that assessee the year ending 30/06/1949, was the previous year for the assessment year 1950-51 with the result that it should be assessed under the Indian Income- tax Act of 1922. But this question was not answered by the High court which confined itself to answering the first question which was common to both the appeals. The appellant before us in both the appeals is the Commissioner of Income-tax and the respondents are the two assessees, in one case a Bank and the other a private limited company. The main argument has been confined to the question of applicability of s. 32(1) and the first proviso to that section of the Travancore Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Travancore Act).
In C. A. No. 259/58 the assessee is a public limited company incorporated in the State of Cochin with branches in that State as well as in what was British India and in Travancore State. It filed its incometax return showing an income of Rs. 11,872.00 for the assessment year 1948-49, its accounting year being the previous calendar year. The Income-tax Officer determined its assessable income to be Rs. 90,947.00 representing only the profit it made in Travancore State and under s. 32(1) proviso(1) of the Travancore Act he refused a deduction of Rs. 79,275.00 shown as loss from branches situate outside the State of Travancore, in British India and other Indian States. The assessee's appeal to the Income-tax Commissioner was unsuccessful but the Appellate tribunal held that the banking business of the assessee being one and indivisible for the purpose of determining the amount assessable to income-tax it was entitled to deduct the losses incurred outside Travancore State from the profits accruing and arising in that State. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax the following question was referred to the High court of Travancore-Cochin:Is the aforesaid sum of Rs. 79,275.00 a loss of the assessee arising outside the Travancore State for purpose of the first proviso to section 32(1) of the Travancore Income-tax Act This question was slightly modified by the High court 260 which after referring to several decided cases answered the question in favour of the assessee.
In C. A. 260/58 the assessee is a private limited company with its registered office in the former Cochin State. It was carrying on business at its head office in Cochin State and it also carried on business in -Travancore State. The assessment was made under the Travancore Act and relates to the previous year ending 30/06/1949, the assessment year being 1950-51. The assesse made a profit in Travancore State and incurred a loss in the State of Cochin and sought to deduct this loss from the profit of Travancore State thus showing a net profit of Rs. 2,643.00. This was not allowed by the Income-tax Officer and on appeal this order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate tribunal also did not accept the submissions of the assessee and upheld the order of assessment. On an application of the assessee the following question was referred to the High court of Travancore-Cochin:' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the loss of Rs. 27,709.00 arising in Cochin State could be set off against the profit of Rs. 38,998.00 arising in Travancore State ? ' and was answered in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner has come up in appeal pursuant to special leave against both these judgments.
It may be stated that the relevant S. of the Travancore Act which govern the two appeals are identically worded with those of the Indian Incometax Act of 1922 (to be called the Indian Act). The corresponding S. are as follows:
It is only necessary to set out s. 32(1) of the Travancore Act and the proviso which correspond to s. 24(1) and proviso (i) of the Indian Act and which are necessary for the decision of the appeals before us: S.32(1) ' Where any assessee sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in Section 9 (Section 6) he shall be entitled to have the amount of loss set off against this income, profits or gains under any other head in that year: Provided that where the loss sustained is a loss of profits or gains which would but for the loss have accrued or arisen within British India or in an Indian State and would under the provisions of clause (e) of Ss. (2) of Section 18 (Section 14(2)(c) ), have been exempted from tax, such loss shall not be set off except against profits or gains accruing or arising within British India or in an Indian State and exempt from tax under the said provisions '. (Sections in brackets are the corresponding S. of the Indian Act). So the only difference between the two S. is that in the proviso to s. 24(1) of the Indian Act instead of the words 'an Indian State' the words 'British India or in an Indian State ' have to be substituted. The question for decision is as to how this proviso is to be construed. Ordinarily the effect of an excepting or a qualifying proviso is to carve something out of the preceding enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be in it and such a proviso cannot be construed as enlarging the scope of an enactment when it can be fairly and properly construed without attributing to it that effect. Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Attorney-General for Canada (1). But it has been held that a section framed as a proviso to a preceding section may sometimes contain matter which is in substance a fresh enactment adding and not merely qualifying that which goes before. Rhondda Urban council v. Taff Vale Railway (2).
(3.)IT was argued on behalf of the Revenue that this proviso falls in the second category and takes the present cases out of s. 32(1) of the Travancore Act and imposes a liability to tax on the profits or gains arising in that State, disallowing a deduction of the losses in British India and in States other than Travancore State against profits made in Travancore State: Rhondda Urban council v. Taff Vale Railway (1) and Harrison v. Ward (2). IT may be mentioned that in the majority of cases decided in India the proviso to s. 24(1) of the Indian Act has been construed in a manner contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue.
In order to determine the true meaning of the words of the proviso it is necessary and convenient to refer to the scheme of the Indian Act which is admitted by the parties to be same as that of the Travancore Act. From 1922 to 1939 in order to be taxable income, profits and gains had to be received or had to accrue in British India. In 1939 the idea of 'total world income' was introduced and the definition of 'total income' was modified by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act (VII of 1939) which also made consequential changes in other S. of the Indian Act. Under s. 2(15) of the Act total income' was defined to mean the total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in that Act. The 'total world income' was defined as including all income, profits and gains wherever accruing or arising except income to which the Act did not apply. Section 3 provided for the charge of incometax in respect of the total income of the previous year. Under s. 4 the total income of any previous year of any person who was resident included all income, profits and gains from whatever source derived but (i) it must accrue or arise to him during the year in British India or (ii) accrue or arise to him without British India during such year. The third clause is not necessary for this appeal. Section 4(3) provided what income, profits or gains were not to be included in the total income of the person receiving them. Both under the Indian Act and under the Travancore Act there were six heads of income chargeable to income tax. In the Indian Act they were set out in s. 6 as follows:S. 6 ' Save as otherwise provided by this Act the following heads of income, profits and gains shall be chargeable to income-tax in the manner hereinafter appearing, namely:(iv) Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation. Then followed ss. 7 to 12B laying down the method of computation of the income arising from each head.
In 1941 during the war an exemption was given for the purpose of taxability to any income, profits or gains which accrued or arose within what was then called Indian States but which were not received or brought into British India. This was done by s. 8 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1941 (XXIII of 1941) by which another clause (c) was added to s. 14(2) which was as follows: ' The tax shall not be payable by an assessee: (c)in respect of any income, profits or gains accruing or arising to him within (an Indian State) unless such income, profits or gains are received or deemed to be received in or are brought into the Indian State in the previous year by or on behalf of the assessee or are assessable under section 12B or section 42'. Thus income, profits or gains arising under any of the heads under s. 6 became exempted in circumstances above-mentioned but the effect of this exemption was not to exclude such income of an assessee for all purposes as was the case under s. 4(3). Such sums were to be taken,into account for the purpose of determining the rate -under s. 16 of the Indian Act. A further consequential change was made in, s. 24(1) by the addition of the first proviso and a similar addition was made in the Travancore Act to s. 32(1) which has already been quoted and it is this proviso which is the subjectmatter of controversy between the parties. A review of the various S. and enactments shows that during 1922-1939 the tax was leviable on income, profits and gains arising or accruing to an assessee in British India. In 1939 the total income became taxable subject to exclusions in sub-s. 3 of s. 4 and the chargeability of the 'total income' was laid down in s. 3. In 1941 income, profits or gains which a resident made in an Indian State and in the case of Travancore State income, profits or gains which a resident made in British India or other Indian States were exempted from payment ofincome-tax unless received or brought into the respective territories, but this income, profits or gains had to be included for the purpose of calculating the rate.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.