Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay vs Chugandas And Co., Bombay on 29 July, 1964
In order to appreciate the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chugandas's case and to consider its bearing on the facts of the present case, it would be necessary to set out the terms of both the sub-sections. Sub-section (3) of Section 25, omitting portions not material to our purpose, is as follows :
Section 25 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 25 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
In a recent case, E. D. Sasoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1968] 70 I.T.R. 561,
the Bombay High Court expressed the same view following the decision of
the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chugandas & Co. The
facts in that case were as follows: For several years prior to 1920 a
partnership firm was carrying on business in India in the name and style of
E. D. Sasoon & Co. The business was that of bankers, commission agents,
agents of joint-stock companies and as dealers in shares and securities in
foreign exchange. In the year 1920 the business of the firm as a going
concern was taken over by the assessee-company. The assessee-company, however, went into liquidation in the year 1948 and ceased to do business. Since the company discontinued its business in the accounting year 1948, it claimed relief in respect of the income which it had earned in that year, under Section 25(3), on the ground that its business was charged to income-tax under the Act of 1918. The claim of the assessee was concurrently negatived by the income-tax authorities as well as by the Appellate Tribunal. On reference, however, the Bombay High Court allowed the claim for. exemption and observed that the word "business" in Section 25(3) does not refer to the head of charge which is referred to in Section 6, read with Section 10, but it implies "business" in a very general sense and includes within it all the heads of charge mentioned in Section 6. The court further observed that there is no reason to restrict the condition of the applicability of the exemption only to income on which tax was payable under Section 10(1) of the Act.