COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAO B. KAMAT

CIVIL APPEAL No. 687/1963Supreme Court[1964] 8 S.C.R. 26308 May 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anant Rao B. Kamat, received dividends in the previous years 1950-51 and 1951-52 from two companies. These companies had been granted rebates under the Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950. For assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53, the assessee claimed that the dividends should be 'grossed up' under Section 16(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, without considering the rebate allowed to the companies. The assessee argued that the rate applicable to the companies' total income should be that prescribed by the relevant Indian Finance Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, grossed up at the State rate. The assessee succeeded before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 16(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, requires that dividends be grossed up 'without taking into account any rebate allowed or additional income-tax charged'. The Court emphasized that ignoring these words would amount to rewriting the section. It was clarified that Section 16(2) applies the rate of the year in which the dividend is paid, not when profits were made. Therefore, the rates prescribed by the relevant Finance Act should apply, and any rebate allowed to the company must not be taken into account during the grossing-up process. The Court rejected the argument that the benefit under the Concession Order was not a rebate, noting that the order itself used the term 'rebate' and that the Concession Order remitted what would otherwise be the proper tax. The word 'rebate' was deemed apt for such a remission. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 60A of the Act, with its words 'exemption' or 'other modification', was wide enough to enable the Central Government to grant such rebates. The Court also stated that the word 'rebate' in Section 16(2) is not limited to rebates under the Indian Finance Act but includes any rebate granted by other statutory orders, and the form of a certificate cannot alter this meaning. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, for the purpose of grossing up dividends under Section 16(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the rate applicable to the total income of the company should be determined without taking into account any rebate allowed to the company, as per the specific wording of Section 16(2)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the benefit granted to the companies under the Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950, constitutes a 'rebate' within the meaning of Section 16(2) of the Act? Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that Section 16(2) mandates grossing up without considering any rebate, and therefore, the rebate granted under the Concession Order should be disregarded. The applicable rate should be that of the relevant Indian Finance Act. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the rate applicable should be the final rate after considering the effect of the Concession Order. It was also contended that the benefit under the Concession Order was not a 'rebate' but a modification in tax computation, and that Section 60A of the Act only enabled exemptions or reductions in rates, not rebates. The revenue also argued that the word 'rebate' in Section 16(2) only referred to rebates granted under the Indian Finance Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 16(2),Section 60A,Section 18(5),Section 66A(2),Section 66(1),Section 20

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

) 8 S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS orders that the Court held that the petitioner was entitled 1964 to seek the protection of Art. 19 and invoke the juri ic- Sri Jagadguru tion of this Court under Art.

32.

In our opinion, there- c . v. • • • • om1nzss1011er o fore, there is no substance 10 the contention that smce m !Iindu Religim1. the present case, the scheme has not been completely imple- Charui;::;.~};""0"' mented till 1952, we mu5t examine its validity in the light - of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant under Ga;en~'"t'"""' Art. 19 of the Constitution. The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. COMi\HSSfONER OF INCOME-TAX'; NEW DELHI v. ANANT RAO B. KAMAT (K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.) Jnco1ne~tax-Dividend declared and paid· in different yeurs-Rate of which year applicable-Meaning of 'rebate'-ls there any tUstinction between rebate under Finance Act and the rebate under other statutes-Indian lllcome-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), .,,-. 16(5), 60A-Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950. "fhe assessee had received in the previous years (1950-51 and 1951-52) dividends from

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 66A(2)

All 46 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →