COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA versus HELEN RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD .

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 16-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
605 
J9t2 
in a Bank to the account of the Company. Thus, 
the amount mnst he held, on the terms of the 
aO'reement, to have been received by the Japanese 
C;mpany, and this attrncts the application 
of 
s.(4)(l)(a). 
Indeed, the Japanese Company did 
<li;poses of a part of those arnrmnts by instructing 
the assessee firm that they be applied in a particular 
way. Jn our opinion, the High Court was right in 
answering the question against the assessee. 
P. V. Rathava Rttldi 
v. 
The appeals fail, an<l 11.re dismissed with costs, 
one hearing foe. 
Appeal dismi88ed. 
COMMTSSIO';ER OF INCOME.TAX KER.ALA 
v. 
'TELEN RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD . 
. srxHA, c .. r., J. L. KAruR, M. HmAvATULLAH, 
.J.C. SHAH and J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Incon1e Tax-Lo.<J~ incurred in Travancore Stat£ in 1946-
·if!JJlication of India la•o,9 to tl1f' /.._'Jtate-Asse-9.r;ee, if entitled to 
rarry Joru·ard the fnss to six ~1ears once the rigf,,t lapsed under 
1';fafe lau)~~-'l'ravanrore l11cnrne-tax .. Act, I 121 M.FJ. (Travancore 
XX!lf of 1121 M. fi:.) .<. 32-India1' lnrome-tax Act, 1922 
(11 of 1922), s. 21-ludinn Finance Art, J.?50 (2•j of 1950), 
•· 12-Taxntion lntr-< (Part B St,.le-<) (RemomI nf D(fjicultie") 
Ord<>r, 1950, para 3. 
The respondent company was incorporated in the former 
State of Travancore. 
The dispute was ahout the right of 
the respondent assessee company to c3rry for\vard the loss of 
the years 1946 under the provisions of the Travancore Act 
read with s. 24 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the 
Taxation laws (Part B States)(Rcmoval of Difficulties) Order, 
19:10, to the assessment year 1951-52 in the assessme"nt of the 
company for its year of account. The Income-tax Officer 
held that the loss of the year 1946 could not be carried for-
\vard to that year, since it had lapsed after two years under 
s. 32 of the Travancore Act ands. 24 (2) was not applicable, 
in dew 6f para 3 of the order. 
Held, that the Taxation laws (Part B State) (Removal 
of Difficulties) Order, 1950, passed under s. 12 of the Indian 
Commissioner of 
lruome-tax 
Hid ryatuilah J. 
1962 
J anum:Y Ili. 
]If~ 
c.-t•siowr oJ 
lftell,.,. Tax Kerala 
v. 
H•U. Rutba 
J"""'1riu w. 
Hid•,10tu/lo/I J, 
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
F'mance Act, 1950, was not intended to make a dividing line 
bc~ccn those pnovious ycan to which the provisions of the 
earlier law would apply, and those ptcvious years to which the 
providons of the Income-tax Act would apply. The rights 
were neither enlarged or curtailed by para 3 of the order. 
That paragraph said that the right was available in the aame 
'lnanner, to the same extent and upto the same year of assess-
ment as laid down in the State law. The law to apply was 
thu• the State law and the carry forward could only be for 
two years. 
Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. Commiaaioner of 
Income-tax, (1959) 35 I. T. R. 271, approved. 
Cxv1i, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 466 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and order da~d 
October 31, 1958 of the Kera.la. High Court in 
I. T. R. No. 2 of 1956 (K). 
K. N. Rajag<rpal Sastri and P. D. Menon, for 
appellant. The respondent did not appear. 
1962. January 16.-The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
HrnAYATULLAII, J.-The Commissioner 
of 
Inoome Tax, Kerala and Coimbatore, ha9 filed thi8 
appeal against the judgment and order of the High 
Co111't of Kera.la dated October 31, 1958, by which 
th11 High Court answered in favour of the respon· 
dent (Helen Rubber Industrie1, Ltd., Kottayam) t.he 
following question : 
"Whether under the prov is ions of the 
Indian Inoome·tax Aot the petitioner is entitled 
to carry forward the loBB for a period of six 
years notwithstanding the faot that during the 
period when the 1088 had occurred, the law 
applicable w&& the Travancore Income-tRx 
Act ?" 
• 
The High Court h&& granted a certificate under 
\I 
e. 66A(2) of the Income-tax Act. Two questions 
were referred to tho High Court in compliance with 
an earlier order of the High Court under s. 66(2) ; 
• 
1 
2 s.c.R. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
607 
but with the other question, we are not concerned 
in this appeal. 
Messrs. Helen Rubber Industries,. Ltd. is a 
Company, which was incorporated in the former 
State of Travancore with its registered office at 
Kottayam. In the year 1941, the assessee Company 
granted a lease of the fao1 ory to certain persons for 
a period of 15 years. . From that year, the rent and 
royalty received 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.