COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL CALCUTTA vs. CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO., LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 495/1970Supreme Court[1973] 3 S.C.R. 95210 April 1973Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, HANS RAJ KHANNA7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., for the assessment year 1947-48, transferred shares it held to a subsidiary company it floated, Clive Row Investment Holding Co., Ltd. The book value of the transferred shares was Rs. 1,66,69,391/-, resulting in a book loss of Rs. 27,02,398/-. The Income Tax Officer valued these shares at market rate, deeming a profit of Rs. 1,02,40,546/-. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) set aside the ITO's order, remitting the case to determine if actual profits were made. The Income Tax Officer appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal summarily on technical grounds. The High Court held the Tribunal's order interlocutory and not referable. The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Revenue.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had been unduly influenced by procedural technicalities instead of dealing with the substance of the matter. The Tribunal's conclusion that the appeal memorandum was not in accordance with law was incorrect, as specific formulas are not necessary for seeking relief if grounds are taken. The Court agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's view that the case should be decided on merits regarding actual profits. It is a well-accepted principle that an assessee can arrange their affairs to minimize tax burden. Transferring shares to a subsidiary to reduce tax liability is not impermissible. The ratio of Sharkey v. Wernher and Dooar's Tea Co. Ltd. was distinguished as they dealt with the valuation of goods used for self-consumption, not transfers between entities at a price less than market value. The Court found the AAC's conclusion to be in accordance with law and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was competent to entertain an application under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of an interlocutory order? 2. If yes, whether the Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in not allowing the applicant's petition for raising additional grounds? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal summarily on the grounds stated in its appellate order? Assessee's Contention: The High Court correctly held the Tribunal's order interlocutory and not referable, making it unnecessary to decide further issues. The assessee also implicitly supported the AAC's view that the case should be examined on merits regarding actual profits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal summarily, and that the assessee should not be allowed to adopt devices to minimize tax liability. They relied on the principle that a person should not give up something with one hand and receive it with the other, citing Sharkey (Inspector of Taxes) v. Wernher and Dooar's Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

.. I ) I I . ' COMMISSIONER OF INCOM&TAX, WEST BENGAL CALCUTTA v. CALCUITA DISCOUNT CO., LTD.

April 10, 1973 [K. S. HEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] lncome-tax-Riglzt of assessee to avoid tax. ,4 ppel/ate Tribunal-Disposal of appeal on 'teclmica/ities-Duty tu con- shirr substance of the matter. .

The assessee company floated a subsidiary co.mpany during the ~ele- \'ant previous year and transferred to that su}J~tdtary company vanou5 l>harc! held by it at a certain rate. The authonttes under the lncome-tlx Act. 1922. held that the assessee and its subsidiary were two different kg01J entities that the transact:on was a bona fide transacttnn and that the assessee had not maJe any secret profits out of that transaction. The locomc-tax Officer, however, valued the shares transferred at the market riltc and held that the assessee company must he deemed to have made a profit. In appeal, the Appellate Assista~t Commissioner . set a.1ide thr order of the Income-tax Officer and rcrrutted the case to h1m for find- in~ out whether the assessee bad really mad.: any profits from the tran- ,action.. 'The Tribunal dism~ed the appeal of the lncome-[a:t Offktr «l:!ain5t that ord

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →