Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 376 to 378 (NT) of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1984SC159; [1984]146ITR524(SC); 1983(2)SCALE826; (1983)4SCC696
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax, Bombay
RespondentBennet Coleman and Co. Ltd.
Cases ReferredAhmedabad v. Shri Vadilal Lallubhai
Excerpt:
- section 9: [s.b. sinha, dr. mukundakam sharma & asok kumar, jj] jurisdiction of civil court-suit questioning order of termination of respondents services by appellant-held, the jurisdiction of civil court in terms of section 9 is a plenary one. the provision relating to bar to entertain a suit must, therefore, be laid down by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. an employee charged with grave acts of misconduct must be held to be entitled to a fair hearing in the departmental proceeding. the common law principles of natural justice must also be complied with. rules laid down in the statutory rules indisputably should be followed. moreover, a dispute arising in between an employer and employee may or may not be an industrial dispute. the dispute may be in relation to..........disposing of a reference and answering the following two questions against the revenue :1. whether wealth tax liability for the assessment year 1959-60 was allowable as a deduction in determining the net wealth of the company for the assessment year 1959-60 ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of wealth tax liability relating to the assessment years in respect of which the assessments had not been finalised on the valuation date, which is to be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the net wealth, should be the wealth tax liability on the undisputed portion of the total wealth of the assessee as finally ascertained on completion of the assessments for those years after the valuation date, and not the wealth tax liability estimated with.....
Judgment:

1. These appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court disposing of a reference and answering the following two questions against the Revenue :

1. Whether wealth tax liability for the assessment year 1959-60 was allowable as a deduction in determining the net wealth of the company for the assessment year 1959-60 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of wealth tax liability relating to the assessment years in respect of which the assessments had not been finalised on the valuation date, which is to be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the net wealth, should be the wealth tax liability on the undisputed portion of the total wealth of the assessee as finally ascertained on completion of the assessments for those years after the valuation date, and not the wealth tax liability estimated with reference to the total net wealth declared by the assessee in its return of wealth for those years ?

2. After hearing learned Counsel, we are of opinion that the High Court is right and that the questions must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the decision of this Court in H.H. Setu Parvati Bayi v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kerala, : [1968]69ITR864(SC) the first question is answered in the affirmative. And in the view taken by us in The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad v. Shri Vadilal Lallubhai etc. in Civil Appeal Nos. 1524 to 1547 of 1973, in which judgment has been delivered today, the second question must also be answered in the affirmative.

3. In the result, the appeals are dismissed, but there is no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //