Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta Vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in[1972]86ITR1(SC)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta
RespondentStandard Vacuum Oil Co.
Cases ReferredIndian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
.....income - appellate tribunal concluded that expenditure incurred was incidental to business and allowed claim of assessee - tribunal observed that wealth-tax payments should be allowed when they actually paid - at instance of appellant question referred to high court to answer whether tribunal was right - high court answered in favour of assessee - appeal preferred and in view of precedent appeal dismissed by apex court. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 3: [dr.arijit pasaysat & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] circumstantial evidence -conviction based on circumstantial evidence held, conviction is possible only if all incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person. conditions precedent for basing conviction on..........as wealth-tax for the assessment year 1959-60, from its assessable income for that year. the income-tax officer; disallowed the claim. the appellate assistant commissioner upheld the order of the income-tax officer. the appellate tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred was incidental to business and allowed the claim of the assessee, observing that the wealth-tax payments should be allowed in the years when they are actually paid.2. at the instance of the commissioner of income-tax, the following question was referred to the high court: whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having. regard to the provisions of the wealth-tax act of 1957, the allowance of wealth-tax liability was correct 3. the high court answered the question in.....
Judgment:

Sikri, C.J.

1. M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd., the assessee, claimed to deduct Rs. 5,63,670 payable as wealth-tax for the assessment year 1959-60, from its assessable income for that year. The Income-tax Officer; disallowed the claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred was incidental to business and allowed the claim of the assessee, observing that the wealth-tax payments should be allowed in the years when they are actually paid.

2. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question was referred to the High Court:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having. regard to the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act of 1957, the allowance of wealth-tax liability was correct

3. The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee. This judgment of the High Court is dated November 24, 1964. The revenue; obtained certificate of fitness from the High Court and appealed to us.

4. Following our decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Civil Appeals Nos. 1694 & 1730 of 1968-judgment dated March 29, 1972/-. Since reported in : [1972]84ITR735(SC) (S.C.)., judgment delivered just now, the appeal is dismissed, Parties will bear their own costs throughout.


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