Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 7, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
In that view of the matter the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that of the Income tax Officer.
XV of 1940 , to impose a tax on excess profits arising out of certain businesses.
The assessee then moved four applications in respect of the four relevant chargeable accounting periods, and by these applications the assessee required the Tribunal to state a case to the High Court of Bombay on the question of law which arose out of its order.
19 of 1956.
On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the companytention of the assessee and allowed the appeal.
The appellant then moved the High Court and obtained a certificate of fitness.
A. Palkhivala and S. N. Andley, for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Daphtary,Solicitor General of India,K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
The assessee claimed that its assessable income in India should be reduced by the loss suffered by it in its business in Baroda.
304 of 1958.
The relevant facts are these the assessee held the managing agency of the Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. It also had a pharmaceutical business in the Baroda State, which was at the relevant time an Indian State run in the name and style of Sarabhai Chemicals.
The Income tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and held that the Act did number apply to the business carried on in an Indian State unless profits and gains of that business were received or deemed to have been received in or brought into India.
The appellant is the Commissioner of Income tax, Ahmedabad, and the respondent is a private limited companypany under the name and style of Karamchand Premchand Ltd., Ahmedabad, to be called hereafter as the assesses.
On that certificate the present appeal has companye to us.
These four applications were companysolidated.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay, and the short question for decision is the true scope and effect of the third proviso to s. 5 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947 Act No.
April 28.
The assessees business in India we shall use the expression India in this judgment to mean British India as it was then called in companytra distinction to an Indian State showed business profits assessable under the provisions of the Act but the business carried on in the name and style of Sarabhai Chemicals in Baroda showed a loss in the relevant chargeable accounting periods which were four in number, namely 1 April 1, 1946, to December 31, 1946 2 January 1, 1947, to December 31, 1947 3 January 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948 and 4 January 1, 1949, to March 31, 1949.
XXI of 1947 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Department went up in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, which held that under the relevant proviso to s. 5 of the Act, profits and losses of a business in an Indian State were number to be taken into companysideration unless they were received or deemed to have been received in or brought into India.
In 1940 the Central Legislature passed the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 Act No.
