9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1954 (11) TMI 6 - SC - Income TaxWhether Section 12-B which authorised the imposition of a tax on capital gains was invalid being ultra vires the Central Legislature? Held that - Act XXII of 1947 which amended the Indian Income-tax Act by enlarging the definition of the term income in Section 2(6-C) and introducing a new head of income in Section 6 an inserting the new Section 12-B is intra vires the powers of the Central Legislature acting under entry 54 in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary for us to consider or express any opinion as to the meaning, scope and ambit of entry 55 in that List. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imposition of a tax under the head 'capital gains' by the Central Legislature was ultra vires. 2. Whether the imposition was in any way invalid on the ground that it was done by amending the Indian Income-tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Ultra Vires Imposition of Tax on Capital Gains The primary issue before the court was whether Section 12-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which authorized the imposition of a tax on capital gains, was ultra vires the Central Legislature. The appellant argued that the Central Legislature did not have the authority to impose such a tax. The High Court, however, answered this question in the negative, ruling that the imposition of the tax was within the legislative powers of the Central Legislature. The court examined the legislative competence of the Central Legislature under Section 100 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which empowered it to make laws on matters enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule. The relevant entries were: - Entry 54: Taxes on income other than agricultural income. - Entry 55: Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies, and taxes on the capital of companies. The High Court judges had differing views on which entry validated the tax. Chagla, C.J., held that the tax could be justified under Entry 55, while Tendolkar, J., believed it fell under Entry 54. The Supreme Court agreed with Tendolkar, J., stating that the term "income" in Entry 54 should be interpreted broadly to include capital gains. The court emphasized that constitutional terms should be given their widest possible meaning and that the word "income" naturally includes any profit or gain received. Issue 2: Validity of Imposition through Amendment The second issue was whether the imposition of the tax was invalid because it was done by amending the Indian Income-tax Act. The High Court did not find it necessary to answer this question, as it had already determined that the imposition of the tax was within the legislative competence of the Central Legislature. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the amendment to the Indian Income-tax Act, which introduced Section 12-B, was a legitimate exercise of legislative power. The court dismissed the appellant's argument that the term "income" had a restricted meaning based on English legislative practice. Instead, it held that the word should be interpreted in its natural and grammatical sense, which includes capital gains. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the amendment to the Indian Income-tax Act, which introduced the tax on capital gains, was intra vires the powers of the Central Legislature under Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs. Final Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
|
