Commissioner Of Income TaxS vs MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P) LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1993 Supreme(SC) 14

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND G.N. RAY, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS
Versus
MADRAS AUTO SERVICE (P) LTD. AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal No. 6065 of 1983 with C.A. Nos. 6601, 8582-87 of 1983, 3495-96, 1728 and 4584-87 of 1984, 1238-40, 1348 of 1980, 5906-09, 5913-14, 5934-35, 6071, 6597, 6598, 8361-62 of 1983, 1727, 2326-29, 3900-01 of 1984, 351 and 1186 of 1987, 4026-28 of 1989 and 2288 of 1981, decided on January 7, 1993

Headnote:
Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Sections 8 and 16 – Taxation - Contention suggesting that reasoning in the said judgment suffers from infirmities – Held, There is a preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the assessee with which we agree – Appeals dismissed.

ORDER

1. All these matters are covered by the pronouncement of this Court in Second I. T.O.

versus

Stumpp Schuele & Somappa (P) Ltd.((1991) 187 ITR 108 (SC))

2. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to entertain any contention suggesting that reasoning in the said judgment suffers from infirmities. It is as important that law be certain as it is correct. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.

Annexure

BEFORE K.N. SINGH, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND KULDIP SlNGH, JJ.

SECOND INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

Versus

STUMPP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA (P) LTD. .

Decided on 14-9-1990

ORDER

These appeals, by leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 3-7-1975 (Second ITO v. Stumpp Schuele and Somappa (P) Ltd.{(1977) 106 ITR 399}, allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent-assessee and quashing the notices issued under Sections 8 and 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. A similar view has been taken by a number of High Courts in Addl. CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd.{(1977) 110 ITR 131 (Mad)}; Commissioner of Surtax v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.{(1979) 116 ITR 528 (Bom)}; CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.{(1980) 126 ITR 736 (Delhi)}; CIT v. Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd.{(1981) 128 ITR 694 (Ker)}; CIT v. Schrader Scovill Duncan Ltd.{(1981) 132 ITR 822 (Cal)}; CIT v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.{(1982) 133 ITR 578 (Guj)}; Siemens IndiaLtd. v. K. Subramanian Ltd., ITO{(1983) 143 ITR 120 (Bom)}; K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd.{(1988) 173 ITR 136 (Bom)}; CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.{(1983) 143 ITR 396 (All)}; CIT v. Indian Detonators Ltd.{(1983) 143 ITR 547 (AP)}; CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.{(1989) 178 ITR 635 (P&H)}; CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries (P) Ltd.{(1989) 178 ITR 173 (P&H)} and CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.{15 (1978) 111 ITR 6 (Bom)} There is a preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the assessee with which we agree.

The appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

For Citation: (1995) 1 SCC 150

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1993 Supreme(SC) 14

Headnote:Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Sections 8 and 16 – Taxation - Contention suggesting that reasoning in the said judgment suffers from infirmities – Held, There is a preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the assessee with which we agree – Appeals dismissed.

Judicial Analysis

Headnote:
Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Sections 8 and 16 – Taxation - Contention suggesting that reasoning in the said judgment suffers from infirmities – Held, There is a preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the assessee with which we agree – Appeals dismissed.