I. C. I. (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. vs. C. I. T., WEST BENGAL

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1308/1970Supreme Court[1972] 3 S.C.R. 13820 January 1972Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: A.N. GROVER, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG I. C. I.11 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a subsidiary of a UK company (ICI), received loans from ICI to subscribe for shares in Indian companies. The correspondence indicated ICI's right to acquire these shares at par in satisfaction of the loans. In 1961, the assessee transferred the shares to ICI as requested. The Income-tax Officer invoked Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to levy capital gains tax, alleging the transfer was to avoid tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, finding the transfer was not made with the object of avoiding capital gains tax. The Revenue applied to the Tribunal for a reference, which was rejected. The High Court then directed the Tribunal to state a case, without providing reasons. This appeal is against the High Court's order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the High Court's jurisdiction to direct a reference is limited to pure questions of law (like statutory construction or document interpretation) or mixed questions of law and fact. A finding of fact, even if an inference from other facts, remains a question of fact unless it is perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Court found that the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the object of the transfer were purely factual, supported by evidence, and reasonable. The scheme was evolved before the re-imposition of capital gains tax, negating the object of avoidance. The Tribunal's finding that the absence of a formal agreement did not establish the object of tax avoidance was not perverse. Therefore, no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order that warranted a reference to the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have provided reasons for directing the reference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court erred in directing the Tribunal to state a case, considering the nature of the questions sought to be referred. - Assessee's contention: The questions were essentially of fact, and the Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence and were reasonable. The High Court should not have directed a reference on pure questions of fact. - Revenue's contention: The questions involved interpretation of documents, potential overlooking of evidence, perversity of findings, and the applicability of Section 52, which they argued were questions of law or mixed law and fact. 2. Whether Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable to the facts of the case. - Assessee's contention: The scheme was conceived and implemented before the re-imposition of capital gains tax, and the transfer was not made with the object of avoiding tax. The Tribunal's finding that the object was not established was a finding of fact. - Revenue's contention: The transfer at par, especially in the absence of a formal agreement, indicated an intention to avoid capital gains tax, making Section 52 applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 52,Section 256

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

138 I. C. I. (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. v. C. I. T., WEST BENGAL January 20, 1972 [A. N. GROVER AND M. H. BEG, JI.] Income-tax Act, (1961) ss. 52 and 256--Dlrectlons by High Court to Tribunal to refer questions-Scope of High Court's ;uri iction After negotiations in 1953 with the concerned Department of the Gov- ernment of India and the Reserve Bank, a Company, incorporated in U.K. advanced large sums by way of loans to its subsidiary in India, namely the assessee, for subscribing for shares in 80llle Indian Companies. The corm- pondence showed that the U.K. Company had the right to acquire at any time the shares at par, in satisfaction of the loans. ln 1961, the asseisee transferred the ahares when called upon by the U.K. Company to do ao.

The Income-tax Officer applied s. 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and use&Sed the usessee to capital gains tax, which was not in existence in 1953 but was re-introduced in the Finance Bill of 1959. The Income-tax Officer held that the object Of the transfer was to avoid or reduce the assessee's liability to capital gains tax. The Appellate Aaistant Commis- sioner however, held that the assessee was not liable to capital gains tax, a

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 52

All 25 judgments and leading authorities on Section 52 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →