LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. versus GAPPUMAL KANHALYA LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
563
in Gappumal Kanhaiya Lal v. Commissioner of Jncome-
tax ( 1 )
(the connected appeal took a correct view of
this matter and the reasoning given therein has our
approval.
The result is that this appeal is allowed and the
two questions which were referred to the High Court
by
the
Income-tax Tribunal and cited
above
are
answered in the affirmative. The appellants will
have
their costs in the appeal.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellants :
M. S. Krishnamoorthi
Sastri.
. Agent for the· respondent : P. A. Mehta.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P.
v.
GAPPUMAL KANHAlYA LAL
[SAIYID FAzL Au, PATANJALI SAsTRI,
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN ;nd MuKHERJEA JJ.]
Indian Income-tax (XI of 1922), s. 9 (1) (iv)-lncome from
p1"Dperty-Computation
of
annual
value-Deduction
of "annual
charges not being capital charges"-Municipa/ house-tax and water-
tax-Whether deductible-Nature of such· charges-U.P. Munici-
palities Act (II of 1916), ss. 128, 149, 177.
The amount of house-tax and the amount of water-tax imposed
by the municipal board of Allahabad under s. 128 of the Unit¢
Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, and
paid by the owner as a
lessor under .s. 149 of the said Act are "annual charges not being
capital _ charges to which · the property is subject," within the
meaning of s. 9 (1) (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and
should therefore be deducted from the bona fide ai;mual value of
the property determined under sub-sections ( l) and -(2) of s. 9 of
the Indian Income-tax Act
Judgment· of the Allahabad High Court affirmed.
New Pieccgoods. Bazar
Co. Ltd. v.
Commissioner
of
Income-tax, Bombay fl950l S. C. R. 553) followed.
( 1 ) I.L.R. 1943 Born. 628.
.
4-5 S, C. Tndia (N. D )/58
1950
New Piecegoods
Bazar Co. Ltd.
v.
Commissioner
of fn,ome-tax,
Bombay
Mahajan].
1950
May26
1950
Commissioner
of Income-lax,
U.P.
v.
Gappumal
Kanhai:1a Lal
Mahajan].
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl9SO)
APPEAL from the High Court
of Judicature at
Allahabad (Civil Appeal No. VI of 1949).
This was an appeal from the High Court, Allahabad
(Iqbal Ahmad C. J. and Allsop J.) dated 31st August,
1944,
in
a reference under section 66 of the Indian
Income-tax Act,
1922.
The facts are set out in the
judgment.
M.
C.
Setalvad,
Attorney-General
for
Indill
(H. /. Umrigar, with him), for the appellant.
Gopi Nath Kunzru (K. B. Asthana,
with him),
for the respondent.
1950 May
26.
The judgment
of the Court was
delivered by
MEHR
CH~ND MAHAJAN ).-This appeal from a
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
dated 31st August, 1944, raises the same Qoints as have
been discussed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of .1949 ( 1).
The
Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal referred four
questions ·
to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under sec-
tion 66 ( 1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. These questions
related to the year of assessment 1939-40.
The
High
Court answered two of the questions in the affirmative
and two in the negative.
The two questions
relating
to the appeal are those that were answered in the affirm-
ative and are as follows :-
"Whethe1 ( 1) the amount of house-tax and (2)
the amount of water-tax,
imposed
by the
Municipal
Board of Allahabad under section 128,
sub-section ( l)
clauses
(i) and (x), respectively of the United Provinces
Municipalities Act,
1916,
and paid by the owner as a
lessor under section 149 of that Act should be deducted
as an allowance from the bona fide annual value of the
property determined under sub-section (1) read with
sub-section (2) of secticm (9) of the Act, on the ground
that such amount is an annual charge,
which is not a
capital charge to which the property is subject within
the meaning of clause (iv) of sub-section ( 1) of section o
of the Al:t."
{1 )New Piecef!oods Bazar eo. lid. ". Commissioner of I~.
Btm1(Jtt
[1950] S.C.R. 553·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
565
Under section 128 of the United Provinces Munici-
palities Act,
1916, the municipality can. impose
a tax
:in the whole or any part of the municipality
on the
annual value of buildings or Janel or of both, and a
water-tax on the annual value of buildings or land or
d both.
Every such tax on the annual value of build-
ings or land or both is leviable on the actual occupier of
the property upon which the said taxes are assessed,. if
he is the owner of the buildings or lands or holds them
on a building or other leExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.