The reference then came up for final disposal on February 20, 1956, and the High Court answered the question in the negative, holding that para.
Resolved that an Ad interim dividend of Rs.
directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case on points number arising from the order of the Tribunal, and this Court held that the High Court had numberjurisdiction to do so.
That a further dividend of Rs.
The dividend was thus declared out of companyposite profits.
The Tribunal pointed out that the dividends were declared by Mafatlal Gagalbhai Co., Ltd., out of its profits which had accrued partly in, what was then called, British India and partly in the Indian State.
The latter has, on the other hand, companysidered whether the Concessions Order applies to the assessee, a matter number touched by the Tribunal.
Appeal by special leave from the order and judgment dated September 28, 1955, and February 20, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
47,120 being the dividends declared by Mafatlal Gagalbhai Co., Ltd., Bombay.
The learned companynsel for the Commissioner, on the other hand, companytends that the question was the assessability of the assessee, who claimed the benefit of the Concessions Order.
47,120?
It was also doing business in the former Baroda State, and used to keep its profits derived in that State with Mafatlal Gagalbhai Investment Corporation, Navsari.
5,30,250 be and is hereby declared for the year 1949 out of the income of the Company for the year 1949 remaining unbrought with Messrs. M. G. Investment Corporation Ltd., Navsari, and that the same be payable in Navsari on or after 30th April, 1949.
She claimed the benefit of para.
The High Court, however, by its order dated September 28, 1955, decided that there was numberneed to send the case back for a supplemental statement, since all the facts necessary to decide the two questions were before the High Court.
24 per ordinary share free of income tax for the year 1948 be and is hereby declared absorbing Rs.
That a further dividend of Rs.
It decided the question of assessability on the short ground that the income had number arisen in Baroda but in British India.
The latter question was, according to the respondent, included in the first question, and the High Court was right when it framed a companyprehensive question and answered it in the sequence it did.
24 9 1949.
17 per ordinary share free of income tax for the year 1947 be and is hereby declared absorbing Rs.
In the year 1949 Mafatlal Gagalbhai Co., Ltd., declared dividends out of these accumulated profits by three resolutions, which are reproduced 25 3 1949.
In the latter income was included a sum of Rs.
The main question was thus the applicability of the Concessions Order, and the question of the accrual of the income, whether in British India or in Baroda, was merely ancillary.
That aspect of the matter has number been touched by the Bombay High Court.
The assessee did number bring these dividends into British India.
28 of 1955.
She was a shareholder, holding 760 shares of Mafatlal Gagalbhai Co., Ltd., Bombay.
507 of 1957.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The assessee had challenged this part of the decision, and if the Commissioner felt it necessary, he should have obtained the decision of the Tribunal and asked for a reference on the other point also.
6,06,000 and the same be payable in Navsari out of the profits of the year 1948 lying at Navsari with Messrs. M.G. Investment Corporation Ltd. on or after 30th April, 1949.
In that case, the Bombay High Court had 1 1959 37 I.T.R. 11.
Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia hereinafter referred to as the assessee who has filed this appeal, was, at all material times, residing in Bombay.
The High Court then reframed the question, as it said, to companyprehend the two points of law in the following words Whether the assessee is entitled to any companycession under the Merged States Taxation Concessions Order, 1949, with regard to the net dividend income of Rs.
J. Kolah and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India,B. Ganapathy lyer and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
At the very outset, the assessee has questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court to frame and deal with a question of law number arising out of the order of the Tribunal.
24 9 1949.
21 per ordinary share free of income tax absorbing Rs.
4 of the Merged States Taxation Concessions Order, 1949 hereinafter referred to briefly as the Concessions Order but the Tribunal held that the income did number accrue to her in the Baroda State.
1,47,026.
4,29,250 and the same be payable in Navsari out of the profits of the year 1947 lying at Navsari.
For the assessment year 1950 51 the previous year being the calendar year 1949 , she was assessed to income tax on a total income of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal with the special leave of this Court, and is directed against an order dated September 28, 1955, and a judgment dated February 20, 1956, of the High Court of Bombay.
1,50,765 which included a grossed up dividend income of Rs.
March 30.
It was, at all material times, resident and ordinarily resident in British India.
Mafatlal Gagalbhai Co., Ltd., is a private limited Company with its registered office at Bombay.
The High Court recognised the grievance of the assessee that numbersuch point was raised before the Tribunal.
When the reference was heard, the High Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have decided and referred also the question whether the Concessions Order applied to the assessee.
It further pointed out that the assessee had paid for and acquired the shares of a Company in British India and was thus holding an asset in British India, and that the income was from that asset.
Leave to appeal to this Court was refused by the High Court, but the assessee applied to this Court for special leave against both the order and the judgment and obtained it, and the present appeal has been filed.
4 of the Concessions Order did number apply to the assessee.
