The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. S. Sarkaria, A. Alagiriswami, J. gave a dissenting Opinion.
The first five petitions of 1971 were urged earlier by Shri Ashok Sen and the rest have been argued number by Shri N. A. Palkhiwala.
The petitioners are carrying on business in the Union Territories of Goa, Daman and Diu.
They are being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
112, 391 394 of 1971 and 330 31 382 387 of 1974.
Respondents 1 and 2 are the Union of India and the Income tax Officer, respectively.
Goa, Daman and Diu are erstwhile Portuguese territories which became a part of the Union of India on and from December 19, 1961.
Thereupon, the President of India in exercise of powers under Article 240 of the Constitution promulgated the Taxation Laws Extension to Union Territories Regulation III of 1963 for short, the Regulation .
72.90.
8 1.00 and at the end of the third year Rs.
By Clause 3 of this Regulation, amongst other laws, the Indian Income tax Act, 1961 for short, the Act was extended to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu with effect from April 1, 1963 subject to certain modifications, one of which was the insertion of s. 294 A in the Act.
Suppose in the Hyderabad case the asset companycerned had been purchased for Rs.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
112/71 , N. A. Palkhiwala In W.P. 330331 and 382 387/74 , S. P. Mehta, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji, G. C. Mathur, Arati Mehta and Ravinder Narain, for the petitioners.
K. Sen In W.P. No.
The power granting the exemption etc.
Section 294 A gave power to the Central Government to make exemption, reduction or modification in, respect of income tax to avoid hardship or anomaly or to remove difficulty in the application of the Act to any assessee in the Union Territories of Dadra Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu etc.
For an appreciation of the actual situation that arises let us take some companycrete figures.
72.90 that was taken into account for the purpose of working out the depreciation allowable under the Hyderabad Income tax Act in the first year when that Act came into force.
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General, P. P. Rao and P. Nayar, for the respondents.
It was this Rs.
