LexMRS. KUSUMBEN D. MAHADEVIA versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- - ' 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 417 MRS. KUSUMBEN D. MAHADEVIA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY. (S. K. D.As, J. L. KAPUR and M. HIDAY.A.TULL.AH, JJ.) Income-tax-Reference-High Court's jurisdiction-If can decide a question not decided by the Tribunal-Indian Income-tax Act, I922 (XI of I922), s. 66-The States (Taxation Concessions) Order, I949, para. 4. The appellant was a shareholder of a company known as Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Co., Ltd. The Company with its register- ed office at Bombay was at all material times resident in British India. It was also doing business in the former Baroda State and used to keep its profits derived in that State with Mafatlal Gagalbhai Investment Corporation, Navsari. In the year 1949 Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Co. Ltd. declared dividends out of profits which had accrued partly in British India and partly in the Indian State. , The appellant was assessed to income-tax on the dividends earned by her. She did not bring those dividends into British India and claimed the benefit' of para. 4 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order. The Tribunal held that the income did not accrue to the appellant in the Baroda State but it did not decide the question whether she was entitled to the bene:fits of the Taxation Concessions Order. The High Court on a;reference to it held that para. 4 of the Taxation Concessions Order did not apply to the assessee but it did not decide the other ques- tion as to where the income had accrued to the assessee. On appeal· by special leave the appellant contended, inter alia, that since the Tribunal had not gone into the question of the applicabi- lity to the assessee of the Concessions Order and had not express- ed any opinion thereon, the High Court could m>t raise the ques- tion on its own and decide it : ' Held, that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in going outside the point of law decided by the Tribunal and deciding a different point of law. Section 66 of the Income-tax Act which confers jurisdiction upon the High Court only permits a reference of a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. It does not confer juris- diction on the High Court to decide a different question of law not arising out of such order. New f ehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1959] 37 I.T.R. II, .Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Commis- sioner of Income-tax, [1954] 26 I.T.R. 686, Commissioner of Income- tax v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, [1955] 27 I.T.R. 279 and Ismailia Grain Merchants Association v. Commissioner of Income- tax, [1957] 31 I.T.R. 433, distinguished, Mash Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-taxi [1956] 30 I.T.R. 388, considered. March 30. Mrs. /( 1'su1nben D. JYI ~hadevia v. Comniissioner of Inco1ne~tax, Bombay H ida yatullah J. 418 SUPREME COURT HEPORTS [1960] C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the order and judg- ment dated September 28, 1955, and February 20, 1956, of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Refer· ence No. 28 of 1955. · . · R. J. Kolah and I. N. Shroff, for the appell11nt. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor . GenP-ral of India, R. Ganapathy Iyer and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1960. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is an appeal with the special leave of this Court, and is directed against an order dated tieptember 28, 1955, and a judgment dated February 20, 1956, of the High Court of Bombay. By the order, the High Court reframed a question referred to it by the Appellate Tribunal at Bombay, which it answered by its judgment. Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) who has filed this appeal, was, at all material times, residing in Bombay. She was a shareholder, holding 760 shares of Mafatlal Gagal- bhai & Co., Ltd., Bombay. For the assessment year 1950-51 (the previous year being the calendar year 1949), she was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 1,50,765 which included a grossed-up dividend income of Rs. 1,47,026. In the latter income was included a sum of Rs. 47,120 being the dividends declared by Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co., Ltd., Bombay. Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co., Ltd., is a private limited Company with its registered office at Bombay. It was, at all mater-ial times, 'resident and ordinarily resident' in British India. It was also doing business in the former Ba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.