COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH vs. H. E. H. MIR OSMAN ALI KHAN

CIVIL APPEAL No. 46/1964Supreme Court[1966] 2 S.C.R. 29625 October 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI OF INCOME21 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case concerns the income tax assessments of H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's objections, leading to appeals. The High Court, in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, answered some questions in favour of the assessee and others against him. Both the Commissioner of Income-tax and the assessee appealed to the Supreme Court. The dispute involves the scope of Section 8, proviso 3 of the Income-tax Act, the effect of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, the international legal status of Indian States, and the taxability of income from certain loans and trusts.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held as follows: (i) The privileges guaranteed by the merger agreement were personal to the Ruler and did not grant immunity from taxation. (Question 1 answered in the affirmative, meaning the assessee was not liable to tax on this ground). (ii) Hyderabad State never had international personality, so its ruler could not claim immunity from taxation under international law. The High Court erred in holding income up to January 26, 1950, not liable to tax on this basis. The assessee's status after January 26, 1950, made him liable to assessment under the Act, irrespective of prior exemptions. (Question 2 answered in the negative, meaning the assessee was not immune). (iii) The assessee was not entitled to exemptions under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. This order was for scaling down tax rates, not for total exemption where no state law existed. (Question 3 answered in the negative, meaning the income was not totally exempt). (iv) The assessee was entitled to exemption from tax on interest from income-tax-free loans under Section 8, proviso (3) of the Act, as the State Government was liable to pay the tax. The exemption also applied under a Notification dated March 21, 1922. (Question 4(i) answered in the affirmative). (v) For income from the Family Trust and Miscellaneous Trust, the assessee was not liable to pay income-tax due to Section 8, proviso (3). However, the assessee was not exempt from super-tax as the Government loans ceased to be his private property after being settled on the trusts. (Question 4(ii) and 4(iii) answered: exempt from income-tax, but not super-tax). The Court modified the High Court's order accordingly. The issue of whether interest accrued in Hyderabad State was not pressed by the assessee and thus not decided by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

The Supreme Court had to decide the following questions: 1. Whether, considering the Covenant of January 25, 1950, regarding the merger of Hyderabad with India, the assessee was not liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether, under international law, the assessee was immune from taxation for the assessment year 1950-51. 3. Whether, under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, the assessee's income was totally exempt from tax. 4. Whether interest received by the assessee on income-tax-free loans issued by the State Government was exempt from tax. 5. Whether income payable to the assessee under the Family Trust and the Miscellaneous Trust, arising from Government securities settled on these trusts, was exempt from tax. Assessee's contentions (implied from the questions and High Court's findings): The assessee argued for exemption from tax based on the merger agreement, international law, the Taxation Concessions Order, and specific provisions for income-tax-free loans and trust income. Revenue's contentions (implied from the questions and High Court's findings): The revenue contended for the taxability of the income, disputing the applicability of the claimed exemptions and immunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 8,Section 66(1),Section 60,Section 41

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH A v. H. E. H. MIR OSMAN ALI KHAN October 25, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] Income-tax Act (11 of 1922) s. 8 proviso 3-Scope of.

Part B Stales (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950-Efject of.

Indian State-Status under International Law.

In respect of the assessments made on the Nizam of Hyderabad for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 the following questions arose in the High Court in a reference under s. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 : (i) Whether having regard to the Covenant dated 25th January 1950 entered into by the assessee with. tb.e Oo..,,rnment of India at the time of merger of the State or Hyderabad wun tlle LJominion of India, the assessee was not liable to tax under the Income-tax Act; (ii) whether undeo: International law, the assessee was immune from taxation in respect of the assessment year 1950-51; (iii) Whether having regard to the pro- visions of Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 the assessee'a income was totally exempt from tax; (iv) whether the interest received by the assessee in respect of certain income-tax free loans issued by the State Government was

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 8

All 98 judgments and leading authorities on Section 8 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →