LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI versus ANANT RAO B. KAMAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) 8 S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS orders that the Court held that the petitioner was entitled 1964 to seek the protection of Art. 19 and invoke the jurisdic- Sri Jagadguru tion of this Court under Art. 32. In our opinion, there- c . v. • • • • om1nzss1011er o fore, there is no substance 10 the contention that smce m !Iindu Religim1. the present case, the scheme has not been completely imple- Charui;::;.~};""0"' mented till 1952, we mu5t examine its validity in the light - of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant under Ga;en~'"t'"""' Art. 19 of the Constitution. The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. COMi\HSSfONER OF INCOME-TAX'; NEW DELHI v. ANANT RAO B. KAMAT (K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.) Jnco1ne~tax-Dividend declared and paid· in different yeurs-Rate of which year applicable-Meaning of 'rebate'-ls there any tUstinction between rebate under Finance Act and the rebate under other statutes-Indian lllcome-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), .,,-. 16(5), 60A-Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950. "fhe assessee had received in the previous years (1950-51 and 1951-52) dividends from tv.ro con1panies. These companies had li>een allowed rebate under the Part R States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950. For the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53, the assessce claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the dividend received by him should be "g'tossed up" under s. 16(2) of the Act, without taking into con- sideration the rebate allowed tO the said companies under the said concession order. On a construction of s. 16(2) the assessee pleaded that the rate applicable to the total income of the said ·coinpanies was the rate prescribed by the relevant Indian Finance Act. The Income-tax Officer grossed up at the State rate and not at the rate prescribed by the relevant Finance Act. Before the Tribunal and the High Court the cwessee succeeded. Held: (i) In interpreting s. 16(2) effect must be given to thes-o words occurring in the saic! section 'without taking into account any reb3.te- 196-1 May, S '. 1964 '- ~- --~.· ,,...... ,.. " / _SUPRE?IIE COURT I~EPORTS [1964J allow·ed or additional income:-tax charged'. ·If these· words are ignored~ it will be rewriting s. 16(2). Section 16(2) applies the rate of the C.!~T:.< : year in ,, .. hich the dividend _is paid, etc., and not of the year when the Anant Rao B. profits V.·ere made by the company. On the fact of this case it wa, Kamat held that the rates prescribed by the relevant. Finance Act· apply. Sikrf J. ' ... - - Rajputana .Agencies Ltd. v. _Commissioner of lncOme~tax, [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 142, distinguished. - .-- (ii) The word 'rebate' in s. 16(2) not only relates to rebate granted under the Indian Finance Act but is wide enough to include any rebate \\rhich may be granted by other stattitory _ ofders.- - The form ·Of the certificate prescribed under the _InCoalC-tax R.~ · cannot change the meaning of the word 'rebate?. The word •rebate' iB an apt word to uSe m respect of remission. A.f/s. J.laganlal Sankalchand v.- Commissioiier of Income·tax~ New Delhi, c:A. No. 703 of 1963.- -Judgment,· dated May 8, 1964 distin- guished. · (iii) The words "exemption' or 'other modification' in s. 60A are wide enough to Cnable the Central Government to give rebate_ such as· has been a.IloWed unc!'!r- the Concc:ssiozi Ordei-." - - CIVIL- APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos: 687- 688 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and order: dated February 3, 1962 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Refer- ence No. 13 of 1958.. · S. K. Kapur and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant: N. S. Palkhivala, S. P. Mehta, I. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder _Narai11, for the respondents. l\foy 8, 1964. ·The Judgment of the Court was deli- vered by S1KR1, J.-These are appeuls by the Commissioner of fncome Tax on certific1tes granted by the Rajasthan High Court under s. 66A ( 2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922), hereinafter.referred to as the Act, against the judgment of the Hi~ Court in a consolidated reference under s. 66(1) of the Act. The High Court answered t.'1e question, reproduced below, in the affirmative. -The refer- ence was made by; the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the following cinmrnstances. ;) ' · 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1964 Cl.T. v. The respondent, Anant Rao B. Kamat, hereinafter ref
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.