By its judgment dated April 29, 1964, the High Court answered the question in the negative and against the appellant.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1964 of the Rajasthan High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The Appellate Tribunal thereafter stated a case under s. 66 1 of the Act and referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to any rebate under the Part B States Taxation Concessions Order.in respect of income from the mining business for the assessment years 1950 51 and 1951 52 ?
The Income tax Officer also, rejected the claim of the appellant that in regard to some of the sales bills were discounted by the Rajashan Bank and payment to that extent should be treated as having been received at Bhilwara in the Part B State.
On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held by its order dated August 18, 1958 that the appellant received the sale proceeds in regard to the goods companysigned to the purchasers in Part A and Part C States and number in Part B State and therefore the appellant was number entitled to the rebate claimed by it.
On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated September 20, 1957 held that the lncome tax Officer was justified in holding that the appellant was number entitled to any rebate under the Part B States Taxation Concessions Order, 1950.
The appellant claimed that it was entitled to the benefit of rebate in regard to profits from these, sales under the Part B States Taxation Concessions Order, 1950 and that s. 4 1 a of the Income tax Act 1922.
T. Desai, S. K. Aiyar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent in both the appeals .
557 and 558 of 1966.
The appellant carried on mining business at Bhilwara and was engaged in the cutting, processing, sorting and packing of mica which was exported by it to Kodama and Giridih which were situated in Part A and Part C States and sold there to purchasers.
The mica was sent almost entirely by railway from Bhilwara to Kodarma and Giridih.
D. Karkhanis, Ganpat Rai, E. C. Agarwala for P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant in both the appeals .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
2 of 1963.
It was held by the Income tax Officer 1 that the letter for discounting was forged, 2 that even assuming that the appellant tendered some of its bills for discounting, the responsibility of the appellant under the companyditions, stipulated by the Bank in its form did number cease till the Bank realised payment from the purchaser and hence there was numberdiscounting of the bills which were merely handed to the Bank for companylection.
hereinafter, called the Act was number applicable to its transactions By his orders dated March 24, 1955 and May 31, 1954 the Incometax Officer held that the sales took place in Part A and Part C States and the entire profits from those sales accrued and were received by the appellant in Part A and Part C States and therefore numberrebate was admissible under the Part B States Taxation Concessions Order, 1950.
The total sale proceeds of the appellant during the two assessment years amounted to Rs.
from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated April 29, 1964 in Income tax Reference No.
The appellant followed the mercantile method of accounting and the assessment years in question are 1950 51 and 1951 52, the companyresponding previous years being the years from November 2, 1948 to October 21, 1949, and October 22, 1949 to November9 5 1950 respectively.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. These appeals are brought, by special leave,.
The appellant is a private limited companypany having its mines, factory and Head Office at Bhilwara in Rajasthan which was at the relevant periods in a Part B State.
15,64,475/ and received payment of that amount at Bhilwara.
19,77,544/ .
2 of 1963.
