Skip to content


Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1989 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC756; [1974]93ITR603(SC)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 2 and 7(2)
AppellantBombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay
Cases ReferredMetal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen
Excerpt:
direct taxation - net wealth sections 2 and 7 (2) of wealth-tax act, 1957 - liability of company to pay gratuity under award of industrial tribunal - such liability cannot be allowed as deduction in computing net wealth under section 2 (m) or in assessing net value of assets under section 7 (2). - section 16 (1) (c): [s.b.sinha & cyriac joseph,jj] suit for specific performance - readiness and willingness to perform contract held, it is not necessary that entire amount of consideration should be kept ready by plaintiff. plaintiff who is a muslim lady, need not examine herself as she got examined on her behalf, her husband, her power of attorney holder. section 20: [s.b.sinha & cyriac joseph,jj] suit for specific performance plaintiff failed to establish that she had all along been..........date, should be allowed as a deduction.2. the high court following the decision of this court in standard mills co. ltd. v. commr. of wealth tax, bombay : [1967]63itr470(sc) answered that question in favour of the department. it is not disputed that the said decision governs the facts of this case, but we are asked to have that decision reconsidered by a larger bench in view of the decision of this court in metal box co. of india ltd. v. their workmen : (1969)illj785sc .3. metal box co. case : (1969)illj785sc was a decision rendered under the bonus act. in that decision the learned judges referred to the decision of standard mills co. ltd. : [1967]63itr470(sc) and distinguished the same. in our opinion there is no conflict between the two decisions.4. for the reasons mentioned above,.....
Judgment:

K.S. Hegde, J.

1. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is:

Whether in the circumstances of the case, in computing 'net wealth' as defined in Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act or in assessing the net value of the assets under Section 7(2) of the said Act, the liability of the Company in respect of gratuity in terms of the Industrial Court Awards for the benefit of its employees in respect of their periods of service upto the valuation date, should be allowed as a deduction.

2. The High Court following the decision of this Court in Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Wealth Tax, Bombay : [1967]63ITR470(SC) answered that question in favour of the department. It is not disputed that the said decision governs the facts of this case, but we are asked to have that decision reconsidered by a larger bench in view of the decision of this Court in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen : (1969)ILLJ785SC .

3. Metal Box Co. case : (1969)ILLJ785SC was a decision rendered under the Bonus Act. In that decision the learned Judges referred to the decision of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. : [1967]63ITR470(SC) and distinguished the same. In our opinion there is no conflict between the two decisions.

4. For the reasons mentioned above, we see no justification for refer ring this case to a larger bench for reconsideration of the decision in Standard Mills Co. Ltd., : [1967]63ITR470(SC) . In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.


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