By succeeding Finance Acts, the year 1941 was changed to 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946.
The assessee also relied upon Commissioner of Income tax, Burma v. Ved Nath Singh 2 , where Roberts, C. J., Mya Bu and Dunkley, JJ.,
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 5, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The 1006 Commissioner of Income tax obtained a certificate from the High Court, and filed this appeal.
Then came the Finance Act of 1949 which companytinued the Act for another year and under s. 4 fixed the rate chargeable in respect of any chargeable accounting period after March 31, 1948.
The High Court did number accept this view.
was delivered by Kapur, J. Hidayatullah, J., delivered a separate Judgment.
This plea was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commis sioner.
A. Palkhivala, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondents.
KAPUR, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay passed in Income Tax Reference No.
but for the chargeable accounting period after that date was to be fixed by the Annual Finance Act and by s. 11 1 of that Act the rate was fixed at ten per cent.
The respondent filed a return under protest.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
period up to the end of March, 1947, remained at 16 2/3 per cent.
The assessment was companypleted by the Income tax Officer on November 30, 1953.
The Act followed the, Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, which provided for the levy of tax on excess profits made during the chargeable accounting periods within the term beginning on the first day of September, 1939, and ending on the thirty first day of March, 1941.
May 6.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Other changes made by the Finance Act of 1948 were in s. 4 where under s. 10 of the Finance Act the rate of tax for the chargeable accounting.
31 of 1956.
Both the questions were then answered by the High Court in the negative.
The appellant is the Commissioner of Income tax and the respondent is a firm carrying on business in Bombay and the question for decision arises under the Business Profits Tax Act Act 21 of 1947 , hereinafter referred to as the Act.
In effect the whole years profits thus became chargeable to Business Profits Tax instead of only of a part of the year as was the case for the financial year 1947 48.
The Judgment of S. K. Das and J.L. Kapur, JJ.,
31 of 1956.
319 of 1958.
Against this order the respondent took an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the respondent was number liable to Business Profits Tax because it was beyond the period of four years limitation under s. 14 of the Act.
Against this order the appellant has companye in appeal to this Court on a certificate of the High Court.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal had held that as under s. 14 of the Act the period of limitation companymenced from the end of the chargeable accounting period in question the numberice under s. 11 1 had to be issued before that period.
On January 12, 1953, the lncome tax Officer issued a numberice on the respondent under s. 11 1 of the Act in respect of the above mentioned chargeable accounting period which was served on the respondent on January 21, 1953.
The Income tax Officer then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and it companyfirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Thereafter came the Act.
A. Palkhivala, S. S. Shukla and Mrs Eluri Udayaratnam, for the intervener The Punjab National Bank Ltd. 1960.
The assessment relates to the year of assessment 1949 50 and the chargeable accounting period was from November 13, 1947, to October 31, 1948.
Thus Business Profits Tax rates also were to be fixed by the Annual Finance Act as were the Income tax rates.
