MRS. KUSUMBEN D. MAHADEVIA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 507/1957Supreme Court[1960] 3 S.C.R. 41730 March 1960Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1950-51 on dividends declared by Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co., Ltd. This company, resident in British India, also conducted business in the former Baroda State and kept profits derived there with Mafatlal Gagalbhai Investment Corporation, Navsari. The dividends were declared out of 'composite profits' accrued partly in British India and partly in the Baroda State. The assessee claimed the benefit of para. 4 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, as she did not bring the dividends into British India. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the income did not accrue to the assessee in the Baroda State but did not decide on the applicability of the Concessions Order. The High Court, on a reference, reframed the question to include the applicability of the Concessions Order and held it did not apply, without deciding where the income accrued.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, permits the High Court to decide questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order, but not entirely different questions that the Tribunal never considered. The Tribunal decided that the income accrued in British India, a point not addressed by the High Court. Conversely, the High Court decided on the applicability of the Concessions Order, a matter not considered by the Tribunal. Although both decisions led to the same result (assessment of tax), the grounds were different. The Court found that the question of accrual of income and the applicability of the Concessions Order were not co-extensive or included within each other. Therefore, the High Court's order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the High Court to decide the question framed by the Tribunal. The costs of the appeal were made costs in the reference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding a question of law not arising out of the order of the Tribunal, specifically concerning the applicability of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, when the Tribunal had only decided on the accrual of income. (Question of law, Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922). Assessee's contentions: The Tribunal did not decide the applicability of the Concessions Order. Therefore, the High Court could not raise this question on its own and decide it, as its jurisdiction is limited to questions arising out of the Tribunal's order. Revenue's contentions: The High Court's decision on the Concessions Order was justified because the question of accrual of income implicitly involved the applicability of the Concessions Order. The High Court reframed the question to cover both aspects, and since the Concessions Order did not apply, the other limb of the question became unnecessary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 66

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- - ' 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 417 MRS. KUSUMBEN D. MAHADEVIA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. (S. K. D.As, J. L. KAPUR and M. HIDAY.A.TULL.AH, JJ.) Income-tax-Reference-High Court's juri iction-If can decide a question not decided by the Tribunal-Indian Income-tax Act, I922 (XI of I922), s. 66-The States (Taxation Concessions) Order, I949, para.

4.

The appellant was a shareholder of a company known as Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Co., Ltd. The Company with its register- ed office at Bombay was at all material times resident in British India. It was also doing business in the former Baroda State and used to keep its profits derived in that State with Mafatlal Gagalbhai Investment Corporation, Navsari. In the year 1949 Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Co. Ltd. declared dividends out of profits which had accrued partly in British India and partly in the Indian State. , The appellant was assessed to income-tax on the dividends earned by her. She did not bring those dividends into British India and claimed the benefit' of para. 4 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order. The Tribunal held that the income did not accrue to the appellant in the Baroda St

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

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →