ORIENTAL INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 651/1967Supreme Court[1969] 2 S.C.R. 4610 September 1968Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, A.N. GROVER INVESTMENT CO.9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Oriental Investment Co. (P) Ltd., is an investment company incorporated in 1924. For assessment years 1940-41 to 1943-44, the assessee claimed to be an investor, not a dealer in shares and properties. This contention was initially rejected by the Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal. The assessee applied to the Tribunal for a reference to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal refused the reference, and the High Court dismissed the assessee's application under Section 66(2). The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the questions were mixed questions of law and fact and remanded the case to the High Court to direct the Tribunal to state a case under Section 66(2) on specific questions. The High Court then decided these questions against the assessee, leading to a fresh appeal to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the questions framed by it on the previous occasion were not appropriate as they assumed the issues were questions of fact, whereas they were mixed questions of law and fact. The Court stated that the proper construction of statutory language is a matter of law, and the claim that profits and losses from sales cannot be taxed as business profits involves applying law to facts. While the High Court must accept the Tribunal's findings on primary facts, it can examine if the Tribunal applied relevant legal principles correctly. Therefore, the scope of the High Court's enquiry in such cases is the same as for pure questions of law. The Court found it expedient in the interest of justice to modify the questions as suggested by the assessee in its original petition under Section 66(1) and directed the Appellate Tribunal to make a fresh statement of case on these modified questions. The Court explicitly stated it was not considering the merits of the dispute or the High Court's previous conclusions, only the competency of the enquiry based on the framed questions. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the questions framed by the Supreme Court on the previous occasion, which assumed they were questions of fact (e.g., 'whether there are any materials on the record to support the finding'), were appropriate for a mixed question of law and fact? 2. Whether the profits and losses arising from the sale of shares, securities, and immovable properties of the assessee company can be taxed as business profits? Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that the questions framed by the Supreme Court on the previous occasion did not reflect the real controversy and that the questions originally framed in its application under Section 66(1) should be referred to the High Court in a fresh statement of case. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments on the framing of the questions. However, the revenue's position, as indicated by the lower authorities' rejections of the assessee's claims, is that the assessee should be treated as a dealer and its profits taxed as business profits. The judgment implies the revenue would have argued for the High Court's decision to stand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66(1),Section 66(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ORIENTAL INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY September 10, 1968 [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, s. 66(1)-Mixed questions of fact and law-What are-Juri iction of High Court in dialing with such ques- dons is the same as in dealing with questions of law-Appropriate Jann for such questions.

For the assessment years 1940-41 to 1943-44 the assessee comi>anY claimed to be an investor in shares and properties and not a dealer. The contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal.

The company then applied to the Tri- bunal under s. 66(1) of the Income tax Act, 1922 for a reference of the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court : (i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee company can rightly be treated as a dealer in investments and properties ? (ii) w)lether the profits and losses arising from the sale of shares, secu- rities and immovable properties of the assessee company can be taxed as business profits.

The Tribunal refused to make the reference and the High Court dismissed the applicatio

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 →