LexA.N. LAKSHMANA SHENOY versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• 'S.O.R. SUPREME 'COURT REPORTS 751 _courts of the new State .. So I agree that, so far as r95a this case is concerned, the ap. pellant must fail. . M/ D 1 .. D d . B t 1 d b h ' . d . d d t s. a """ a n u my earne rot er s JU gment IS groun e o cement co. Ltd. a large extent on the views of the English courts which v. do not draw .the distinction that I am drawing here. The Commissioner I therefore want to make it clear that this decision °! Income-tax must not be used as a precedent in a case in which rights to immoveable property are concerned. With- out in any way committing myself to one view or the other, as at present advised, I feel it may be a pity for us to disregard the trend of modern international thought and continue to follow a line of decisions based on the views of an older Imperialism, when we are not bound by them and are free to mould our own laws in the light of modern thought and conceptions about.rights to and in immoveable property. But in so far as the present case is concerned, I agree that the appeal and the petition under Art. 32 should both be dismissed. Appeal and petition dismissed. A. N. LAKSHMANA SHENOY v. Bose ]. April z8. -. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM & r ANOTHER (and connected appeals) (S. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE JJ.) ·Income Tax--Re-assessment-OriginaJ, assessn:ent under the provisions of Travancore, Cochin and Mysore Income-tax Acts- Constitutional changes resulting in Travancore and Cochin, and Mysore becoming Part B States-Extension of Indian Income-tax Act to th~e States-Applicability of the Travancore, Cochin and Mysore Income-tax· Acts for re-assessment for prior P.eriod-Finan- ciaJ, agreement between the President of India and the Rajpramukh- . 96 • 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1959] r958 Effect on 1·e-assess1nent procecdittgs-Travancore Inconic~tax Act, II2I (Travancore XXIII of IIZI), s. 47-Cochin Income-tax Act, III7 Lakshmana Shenoy (Cochin 'VI of III7). s. 44·-Mysore Income-tax Act, I923 (Mysore v. V of I92J), s. 34-Finance Act, I950 (XXV of r950), s. r3(r)- The Income-tax Constitution of India, Arts. 278 and 295. Offi.cer, Ernakulam . . Sechop 13(1) of the Fmance Act, 1950, provided : " If • immediately before the 1st day of April, 1950, there is in force in any Part B State ...... any la\v relating to income tax or super- tax or tax on profits of business, that law shall cease to have effect except for the purposes of the ·levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of any period not included in the previous year for the purposes of assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, or for any subsequent year, or, as the case may be, the levy, assessment and collection of the tax on profits Of business for any chargeable accounting period end- ing on or before the 31st day of March, 1949 ... " The appellant, a merchant carrying on his business in the erstwhile States of Travancore and Cochin, was asse;sed to income-tax for the two accounting years n22 M. E. (1946-1947) and n23 M. E. (1947-1948) under the income-tax law in force there, namely, the Travancore Income-tax Act of n21 M. E. and the Cochin Income-tax Act of 1n7 M. E. Between 1947 and 1950 there were constitutional changes resulting in the integra- tion of the two States, formation of the United State of Travan- core and Cochin, accession of the latter to the Dominion of India, and finally, its acceptance of the Constitution of India whereby it became a Part B State within the Constitution of India. The question of financial integration was considered by the Indian States Finances Enquiry Committee and on the basis of the recommendations made by it a financial agreement was entered into on February 25, 1950, between the President of India and the Rajpramukh of the State of Travancore-Cochin. By Art. 277 of the. Constitution taxes leviable under the Travan- core Income-tax Act or the Cochin Income-tax Act continued to be so levied until provision to the contrary was made by Parlia- ment by law. Such provision was made by the Finance Act, 19501 which extended the Indian Incon1e-tax Act, I922 1 to the State of Travancore-Cochin, but by s. 13(1) saved certain provi- sions of the Travancore and Cochin Income-tax Acts. In res- pect of the as"il'ssment for the accounting year n24 M. E. t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.