is chargeable to income tax under ss.
This had been done in If the previous years, and the assessee bank had accepted the basis and the companyputation of capital assets during the previous years.
The matter was heard by the High Court with the result indicated above.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 10, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No.
By an order dated March 31, 1949, the Excess Profits Tax Officer assessed the respondent on the said rental income in respect of the accounting period ending March 31, 1946, under sub r. 4 of r. 4 of Schedule I to the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940 XV of 1940 which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act .
On appeal by the respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated January 3, 1950, upheld the assessment on the basis of sub r. 2 of r. 4 of Schedule I to the Act.
86,000/ .
The Department and the Income tax Appellate Tribunal answered the question in the affirmative.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
N. Rajagopal Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
On a further appeal by the respondent to the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal held that there was numberdoubt that the premises were built with a view partly to housing the head office of the companypany, and partly for the purpose of being let out to tenants, and that it was an investment by the Bank in immovable property.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Sen, P. K. Ghosh and P. K. Bose, for the respondent.
4 of 1956.
He pointed out that the assessee carries on banking business which includes holding investments, and thus, the rental in companye in respect of its investments in immovable property, is included in its business income, even though it was number chargeable to income tax under s. 10 of the Income tax Act.
The Tribunal found that the portion let out is about four to five times the floor area of the portion of the building occupied by the assessee for the purposes of its own business.
As the Bench refused to grant the necessary certificate of fitness, the appellant applied for, and obtained, special leave to appeal, by an order of this Court dated September 27, 1954, The facts of this case are short and simple.
The annual rental income derived from the portion let out, is about Rs.
On a statement of the case to the High Court under s. 66 1 of the Income tax Act, a Bench of the Calcutta High Court Chakravartti, C. J., and Lahiri, J. answered it in the negative, reversing the orders of the Department and the Tribunal.
The following Judgments were delivered SINHA, J. The question for determination in this appeal by special leave, is whether the assesses, the Calcutta National Bank Ltd. in liquidation , is liable to Excess Profits Tax in respect of Rs.
39 of 1952.
April 20.
The assessee was a banking companypany in a large way of business.
It owns a six storeyed building where its offices are located on the ground floor and a part of the 6th floor, while the rest of the building is let out to tenants.
86,000/ , which it realised by way of rent of the building at its headquarters in Calcutta, during the accounting period ending March 31, 1946.
Income from securities, like shares and properties.,
He also pointed out that the assessee had itself included the value of these assets in the companyputation of its capital, for claiming standard profits.
8, 9 and 12 of the Act but that head of income is chargeable under the Act as business profits.
