Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. Singh, K. Jagannatha Shetty, kuldip singh,JJ.
Second Income Tax Officer - Petitioner
Versus
Stumpp Schuele And Somappa (P) Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal 771-76/1991
Decided On : 14-9-1990
K.N. Singh - Companies(Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - The court dismissed the appeals, concurring with the preponderance of judicial opinion in favor of the assessee and upholding the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka, which had allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent-assessee and quashed the notices issued under Sections 8 and 16 of the Companies(Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court, and noted the preponderance of judicial opinion in favor of the assessee. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the notices issued under Sections 8 and 16 of the Companies(Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concurred with the view taken by the High Court and the preponderance of judicial opinion in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT :
K.N. Singh - 1. 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.2, (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. Commissioner Income Tax v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd.3 Commissioner(1977) 110 ITR 131 (Mad) ;Commissioner of Surtax v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 4(1979) 116 ITR 528 (Bom);Commissioner Income Tax v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., (1980) 126 ITR 736 (Delhi);Commissioner Income Tax v. Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. 6(1981) 128 ITR 694 (Ker);Commissioner Income Tax v. Schrader Scovill Duncan Ltd.7(1981) 132 ITR 822 (Cal);Commissioner Income Tax v.Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.8;(1982) 133 ITR 578 (Guj)Ltd v. K. Subramanian Ltd., IT09; Siemens India(1991) 187 ITR 108 (SC): (1991) 94 CTR 160 Ltd. v. K. Subramanian Ltd., IT09; K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. 10; Commissioner Income Tax v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. 11; Commissioner Income Tax v.Indian Detonators Ltd. Commissioner Income Tax v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.13; Commissioner Income Tax v. Avery Cycle Industries (P) Ltd.14 andCommissioner Income Tax v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
2. 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.
Appeal dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
