687 688 of 1963.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 3, 1962 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Reference No.
TheTax Officer disallowed the grossing up at the Indianbut allowed at the State rate, defined by paragraph 3 v of the Conclusion Order.
According to the assessee, on a true of S. 16 2 of the Act, the rate applicabl, to the total income of the said companypanies was the rateby the relevant Indian Finance Acts.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of, the Income Tax Officer, but the assesse succeeded before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
During the companyrse of the hearing of the companynected Civil Appeal in M s. Maganlal Sankalchand v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi 1 , the learned companynsel Civil Appeal NO.
May 8, 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SIKRI, J.These are appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax on certificates granted by the Rajasthan High Court under S. 66A 2 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 11 of 1922 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the judgment of the High Court in a companysolidated reference under s. 66 1 of the Act.
S. Palkhivala, S. P. Mehta, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
is chargeable a, full Indian rate b per cent is chargeable at the reduced rate of .
The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the following circumstances The respondent, Anant Rao B. Kamat, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, had received in the previous years 1950 51 and 1951 52 dividends from two companypanies, Associated Stone Industries Kotah Ltd. and Rajputana Mining Agencies Ltd. For assessment years 1951 52, and 1952 53, the assessee claimed before the Income Tax Officer that the dividends received by him should he grossed up under s. 16 2, of the Act, without taking into companysideration the rebate allowed to the said companypanies under the Part, B States Taxation Concessions Order, 1950, hereinafter called the Concession Order.
The High Court answered the question,reproduced below, in the affirmative.
K. Kapur and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
13 of 1958.
