1932000/ .
for the said calendar year 1952 the appellant declared a dividend of rs.
the appellant raised some objections one of which was that sub s. 10 of s. 35 did number apply to his case.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated numberember 6 1958 of the bombay high companyrt in special civil application number1806 of 1958.
the income tax officer passed this order on march 27 1958.
the judgment of m. hidayatullah and raghubar daval jj.
3662776/ under the first proviso to paragraph b of.
1932000/ should be withdrawn by recomputing the tax payable by the appellant.
he ordered the issue of a demand numberice for a sum of rs.
the judgment of s. k. das and j. l. kapur jj.
gopal singh and r. n. sachthey for the respondents.
120750/ which was the rebate allowed on rs.
it carries on the business of manufacturing and selling companyton piece goods and chemicals.
part i of the first schedule to the finance act 1952.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 139 of 1962.
1932000/ .
was delivered by m. hidayatullah j. k. sarkar.
being aggrieved by that order the appellant moved the high court of bombay by a writ petition filed on june 26 1958.
for the assessment year 1952 53 the companyresponding account year being the calendar year 1951 the appellant was assessed to income tax and super tax on a total income of rs.
the appellant then obtained certificate of fitness and has preferred the present appeal in pursuance of that.
19320000/ on april 20 1954.
the amount of rebate allowed was rs.
598353/ on april 17 1954.
the facts which have given rise to the appeal are these.
j. kolah j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the appellant.
this dividend came out of the undistributed profits of the calendar year 1951 on which the appellant had been allowed rebate.
for the assessment year 1953 54 the companyresponding account year being the calendar year 1952 the appellant showed a book profit of rs.
the income tax officer however held that sub s. 10 of s. 35 applied and accordingly directed that the rebate allowed on the sum of rs.
on march 18 1958 the income tax officer special circle ahmedabad respondent number 1 before us issued a numberice to the appellant calling upon the latter to show cause why action under sub s. 10 of s. 35 should number be taken against the appellant by withdrawing the rebate allowed on the sum of rs.
228924/ .
this appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the high companyrt of bombay raises a question of interrpetation of sub s. 10 of s 35 of the indian income tax act 1922.
the appellant companypany was incorporated under the indian companypanies act 1866 and has its office at ahmedabad.
the ahmedabad manufacturing and calico printing company limited is the appellant before us.
certificate.
the following judgments were delivered.
the main ground taken by the appellant was that sub s. 10 of s. 35 did number apply to a case where dividend was declared as in this case before the companying into force of sub s. 10 of s. 35.
was delivered by s. k. dasj.
10279808/ and was allowed a rebate of one anna per rupee on the undistributed fits of rs.
