7,84,063, thus companyverting the profit into loss for income tax purposes.
3,29,062.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 9, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
This additional income tax was companyputed to be Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. The High Court of Bombay in a reference under s. 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, was referred the following two questions for decision Whether the assessee Company was liable to pay additional income tax ?
and If the answer to question No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Income tax Officer treated this amount as excess dividend and levied additional income tax as provided in Paragraph B of Part I of the First Schedule to the Indian Finance Act, 1951.
A. Palkhivala, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, for the respondents and intervener.
This appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court on a certificate granted by it.
N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
427 of 1957.
For the assessment year 1951 52 the previous year being the calendar year 1950 , the assessee Company was found to have incurred a loss of Rs.
1 is in the affirmative, whether the levy of the additional income tax is ultra vires The High Court answered the first question in the negative and in the circumstances, left the second question unanswered.
2,19,848 and was thus adjudged to be number liable to income tax.
May 4.
The facts may number be stated briefly.
31/X of 1954.
The Commissioner of Income tax is the appellant, and the Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Bombay the assessee Company is the respondent.
Hence this appeal by the Commissioner of Income tax.
In the same year, the assessee Company declared dividends mounting to Rs.
In that year, the assessee Company had made profits, but the depreciation allowance under the Income tax Act came to Rs.
