Issue
Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Commr. Of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay
v.
Kirloskar Bros. Ltd
(Supreme Court Of India)
CA No. 20 of 1953 | 19-04-1954
Das, J.
1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of the Bombay High Court was as follows :-- "Whether on the facts of the case, income, profits and gains in respect of sales made to Government of India was received in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act "
2. The High Court answered the question in the negative for reasons set out in its judgment covering this case as well as the case out of which Appeal No. 19 of 1953 came to be filed before us
3. The facts, found in this case, are similar to those found in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1953--Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Messrs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., except in the following particulars
(1) that all cheques were made non-negotiable
(2) that no credit was given by the bank to the assessee before collection
(3) that there was no finding that the assessee gave credit to the Government for the amount of the cheque immediately on receipt thereof
4. Learned counsel on either side did not suggest that the differences noted above would make any difference in the answer to the referred question which is the same as in the other appeal. That being the position, this case is governed by the judgment which has just been pronounced by us in the other appeal. We accordingly allow the appeal and answer the referred question in the affirmative. For reasons similar to those referred to in our judgment in that appeal each party must bear and pay his or its own costs both in this Court and in the High Court.
5. Appeal allowed.
1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of the Bombay High Court was as follows :-- "Whether on the facts of the case, income, profits and gains in respect of sales made to Government of India was received in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act "
2. The High Court answered the question in the negative for reasons set out in its judgment covering this case as well as the case out of which Appeal No. 19 of 1953 came to be filed before us
3. The facts, found in this case, are similar to those found in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1953--Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Messrs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., except in the following particulars
(1) that all cheques were made non-negotiable
(2) that no credit was given by the bank to the assessee before collection
(3) that there was no finding that the assessee gave credit to the Government for the amount of the cheque immediately on receipt thereof
4. Learned counsel on either side did not suggest that the differences noted above would make any difference in the answer to the referred question which is the same as in the other appeal. That being the position, this case is governed by the judgment which has just been pronounced by us in the other appeal. We accordingly allow the appeal and answer the referred question in the affirmative. For reasons similar to those referred to in our judgment in that appeal each party must bear and pay his or its own costs both in this Court and in the High Court.
5. Appeal allowed.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties C.K. Daphtary, Paras A. Mehta, R.H. Dhebar, G.H. Rajadhayaksh, R.J. Kolah, Y.D. Pandit, Rajender Narain, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. DAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.H. BHAGWATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. JAGANNATHADAS
Eq Citation
[1954] 24 COMPCAS 537 (SC)
AIR 1954 SC 504
[1954] 25 ITR 547
LQ/SC/1954/72
HeadNote
Income Tax — Income — Income received in British India — Receipt of income — Non-negotiable cheques — Non-crediting of amount of cheques to assessee's account before collection — Non-existence of finding that assessee gave credit to Government for amount of cheque immediately on receipt thereof — Held, differences noted would not make any difference in answer to question referred — Question referred answered in affirmative — Income-tax Act, 1922 — S. 4(1)(a) — Territorial jurisdiction — Receipt of income
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
