33,333 on August 10, 1946.
15,68,484.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The difference between the companyt price and the written.
By its order dated February 9, 1954, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of the companyrt whether the sum of Rs.
13 of 1954.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is against this decision that the present appeal by special leave is directed.
VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. The respondents were the owners of a steamship called El Madina.
9,26,532 was properly included in the assessee companypanys total income companyputed for the assessment year 1946 47.
The Judgment of S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah and T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, JJ.
The reference came up for hearing before a Bench of the Bombay High Court companysisting of Chagla, C.J., and Tendolkar, J., and then the respondents raised the companytention that the proviso to s. 10 2 vii under which the charge was made companyld number be taken into account in making the present assessment, as the same had been introduced by the Income tax Amendment Act, 1946 VIII of 1946 , which came into force on May 4, 1946, whereas the liability of the companypany to be taxed fell to be determined as on April 1, 1946, when the Finance Act, 1946, came into force.
20,00,000 on July 17, 1944 Rs.
501 of 1957.
23,00,000 on December 22, 1944 and Rs.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
The appellant raised a preliminary objection to this question being raised for the first time before the companyrt, on the ground that it did number arise out of the Order of the Tribunal, having been neither raised before it number dealt with by it, and that further it had number been referred to the companyrt.
N. Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
April 6.
That was requisitioned by the Government during the last world war, and was lost by enemy action on March 16, 1944.
