36,01,735 as loss of the previous years and paid Rs.
51 of 1964 in the High Court of Rajasthan and challenged the order claiming that the Income tax Officer was bound to accept the return made by the Company and companyld number assess it to tax on income number admitted.
Against that order the Company moved petition No.
59,89,757 as profit, and claimed to set off against that amount Rs.
67 of 1965 in the High Court of Rajasthan, for an order quashing the demand.
But the Income tax Officer made a provisional assessment and companyputed the tax on the total income of Rs.
12,12,596 65 as tax due by it in accordance with s. 140A 1 of the Act.
The order demanding tax of Rs.
Against the orders passed by the High Court, these three appeals have been preferred by the Company.
For the same reasons in making the provisional assessment for the year 1964 65 the Income tax Officer was number entitled to ignore the claim made by the Company that against the income of Rs.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 20, 1965 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos.
C. Chagla, Bishambar Lal, H.K. Puri, M.K. Garg and K. Jain, for the appellants.
For the assessment year 1964 65 the Company returned a net income of Rs.
In its return of income for the assessment year 1963 64 the Company claimed to set off against the income returned Rs.
Assessments for the years 1960 61, 1961 62, 1962 63, 1963 64 and 1964 65 were however then number companypleted.
59,89,757 returned by the Company without allowing any deduction claimed and ordered the Company to pay an additional amount of Rs.
36,01,735 should be permitted to be debited.
The Company moved petition No.
For the assessment year 1965 66 the Income tax Officer relying upon s. 210 3 of the Act called upon the Company to pay Rs.
T. Desai, N.D. Karkhanis, R.N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, established in 1953 a cement factory at Sawai Madhopur in the State of Rajasthan.
87,387 as penalty for default in companypliance with the demand.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1961 62 66,086 Loss 1962 63 44,93,236 Profit 1963 64 7452402 Profit 1964 65 59,89,757 Profit Against the orders of assessment made by the Income tax Officer for the years 1954 55 to 1959 60 determining its net income or loss as set out in the chart the Company appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the appeals were pending at the dates of companymencement of the petition, in the High Court of Rajasthan which give rise to the proceedings in this Court.
The following chart sets out the income or loss returned by the Company for the years 1954 55 to 1964 65 and the income or loss companyputed for the years by the Income tax Officer on assessment Year of Income or loss returned Income or loss companypu Assessment by the Companyted by the1.
to be rejected.
The Income tax Officer made a provisional assessment of tax under s. 141 of the Incometax Act, 1961, and against the income returned by the Company he allowed deduction of Rs.
1,03,03,935 being the aggregate amount of loss which it claimed it had suffered in the previous years and was entitled to set off against the income of that year.
For the year 1965 66 the Income tax Officer demanded payment of advance tax on the provisional assessment for the year 1964 65.
26 of 1965, for an order quashing the demand of tax and for an injunction restraining the Income tax Officer from enforcing the demand.
103 lakhs odd was liable.
29,45,365 25 as advance tax.
From time to time the Company filed its returns under the Income tax Act, 1922, and after the repeal of that Act under the Act of 1961.
17,32,768 60.
586588 of 1967.
59,89,757 returned, Rs.
8,73,873 as tax provisionally due and Rs.
51 F of 1964, and 26 and 67 of 1965.
39,89,731 as loss carried forward from the earlier years, and made a demand for Rs.
The Company moved petition No.
