Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act

The Fazilka Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed ·

Bench: 2 Judges

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. The Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd

Bench: The Arbitrator. In Spite Of That He Has Made The Award In The Terms In Which He Has Made It. There Appears To Be No Suggestion That The Arbitrator Acted Dishonestly. How Can It Then Be Said That This Award Is On Its Face Bad? Agreeing With The High Court We Dismiss This Appeal With Costs To The Contesting Respondent. Appeal Dismissed. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay V. The Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah & T. L. Venkatarama Aryar, Jj.) Income-Tax-Reference-Scope-"Any Question Of Law Arising Out Of Such Order", Meaning Of-Indian Income Tax Act, I922 (Ii Of I922), As Amended By Income-Tax (Amendment) Act, I946 (Viii Of I946), Ss. 66, Rn(2)(Vii) Proviso. Bys. 66 (1) Of The Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 "The Assessee Or The Commissioner May, By Application In The Prescribed Form ...... Require The Appellate Tribunal To Refer To The High Court Any Question Of Law Arising Out Of Such Order & The Appellate Tribunal Shal] ... Draw Up A Statement Of The Case & Refer It To • • ' I

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City, Bombay vs. Bipinchandra Maganlal and Co. Ltd., Bombay

Bench: 3 Judges

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Circle II vs. The National Syndicate, Bombay

Bench: 3 Judges

The Liquidators of Pursa Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar

Appeal is allowed and the

Bench: The Commencement Of This Constitution May Within Three Months From Such Com- Mencement Be Submitted To Thefor His Certification ; & Thereupon, If Theby Pub- Lic Notification So Certifies, ,It Shall Not Be Called In Question In Any Court On The Ground That It Contra- Venes The Provisions Of Clause (2) Of This Article Or Has Contravened The Provisions Of Sub-Section (2) Of Section 299 Of The Government Of India Act, 1935." It Is Not Disputed That The Madras Act Xxvi Of 1948 Does Fulfil All The Requirements Mentioned Above. Consequently, It Is Not Possible For Us To Allow The Ap- Pellants To Raise The Contentions Which The Learned Counsel On Their Behalf Wants To Raise. The Result Is That The Appeals Would Stand Dismissed, But In The Circumstances Of This Case We Shall Make No Order As To Costs. Appeals Dismissed. Agent For The Appellants : S. Subramanian. Agent For The Respondents : R. H. Dhebar. The Liquidators Of Pursa Limited V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar. [Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J., S. R. Das, Ghulam Hasan & Jagannadhadas Jj. J Income-Tax Act (Xi Of 1922) S. 10(2) (Vii) Proviso 2- Any Such Machinery Or. Plant Must Have Been Used In The Account- J·Ng Year-Section 66-Finding Of Fact-When Appeal Court Can Intervene. The Fundamental Idea Underlying The Words Used In The Definition Of "Business" In S. 2( 4) Of The Income-Tax Act Is The Continuous Exercise Of An Activity & The Same Central Idea Is Implicit In The W~R?S ."Carried On By Him" Occurring In S. 10( 1) & Those Cr1Ttcal \Vords Are An Essential Constituent Of That Which Is To Be Produce The Taxable Income & Therefore The 1954 Z...,Wlt1' Ef It:H"7";-.. V. T Lw St<H Ef -· Mw.Hnj<A]. 1954 P,......, 9·