Some time during 1955, the appellant took a loan amounting to over Rs.
4 lakhs from the companypany.
The Income tax Officer took the view that under s. 2 6A e the said amount must be deemed to be dividend received by the appellant, and as such, must be included in the total income of the appellant as income from other sources within the meaning of s. 12 1B of the Act.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 30, 1962, of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
A numberice was issued to the appellant by the 8th, Income Tax Officer under s. 22 2 of the Act calling, upon him to make his return for the assessment year 1956 57.
11 of 1922 hereinafter called the Act as it stood in 1955.
The High Court has rejected the appellants companytention that the said section is invalid, and the appellant has companye to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court.
The appellant holds 11 out of 845 shares in a private limited companypany named the Malegaon Electricity Co., Private Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the companypany .
69 of 1962.
The Income tax Officer companyputed his income at Rs.
S. Pathak, M. M. Gharekhan and 1.
3,58,460.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgments of P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, HIDAYATULLAH and J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.
The business of the companypany is to supply electricity to the residents of Malegaon.
N. Shroff, for the appellant.
45 of1964.
2,83,126 representing the accumulated profits of the companypany.
The value of each share is Rs.
This amount included a sum of Rs.
Gajendragadkar C.J. This appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant Navnit Lal C. Javeri in the Bombay High Court in which he challenged the validity of section 12 1B read with s. 2 6A e of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 No.
was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, R. Ganapathy Iyer, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The appeal, however, failed and was dismissed.
This order was challenged by the appellant by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The appellant then preferred a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
