SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Cal) 86

LAHIRI, CHAKRABARTI
IN RE: COMMR. OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, CENTRAL, CALCUTTA – Appellant
Versus
BHARTIA ELECTRIC STEEL CO. LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BALAI LAL PAL, E.MEYER, S.CHAUDHARY, SUDHANSU SEN

CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act, read with Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, of a short question of law to which the third proviso to Rule 5a of Schedule I to the former Act has given rise. The question reads as follows: "whether on the facts and in the circumstances, of this case, the amount of pronts of the standard period as fixed by the central Board of Revenue under Section 26 (1), Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, requires to be increased under the third, proviso to Rule 5a of Schedule I of the said Act by the amount of interest apportionabie to the standard period on deferred snare capital, later on treateu as borrowings even though such interest had not been charged to the profit and loss-account in the standard period. "

( 2 ) THE facts are simple. The assessee is a limited company and it appears that in 1937 it issued 1,45,000 deferred shares and obtained some money from those who took them up. Subsequently, the validity of the issue of those shares came to be disputed and upon a suit being brought, this. Court, by an order dated 16th July 1941, held that the resolution deciding on the issue of the shares, and the allotmen



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top