Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (12) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ited and Burmah-Shell Refineries Ltd., totalling to Rs. 3,07,72,919 and the tax payable thereon was computed at the rate of 25% at Rs. 76,93,229.75 without allowing any rebate in accordance with the proviso to Paragraph D of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1964. After giving credit for the tax deducted at source, the tax payable was determined at nil. The Indian company, i.e., M/s. Burmah-Shell Refineries Ltd., was assessed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65 on March 26, 1969. In the said assessment, the said Burmah-Shell Refineries Limited was treated as a company in which public were not substantially interested within the meaning of section 2(18) of the said Act. The Income .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r and held that the said company was not one in which public were substantially interested within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Act. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the business carried on by the said company can be attributed to the business of manufacture and production of mineral oil and accordingly it would be eligible for the higher rebate of tax under the Finance Act, 1964, provided other conditions specified in that behalf in the relevant Schedule are fulfilled. Neither the said company nor the Income-tax Officer preferred any appeal against the said decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the same has become final. By a letter dated June 8, 1971, M/s. Price Waterhouse Peat & Co. sent a re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated August 30, 1976, the Income-tax Officer informed the petitioner-company that on reconsideration of the matter, the claim could not be entertained under section 237 of the said Act. In the application, the petitioner has challenged the said decision of the Income-tax Officer and asked for direction upon him for refund of the amount claimed. No one has appeared for the respondents nor has any affidavit been filed. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner-company has been charged in respect of the dividend income received from the said Burmah-Shell Refineries Limited at the rate of 25%. In view of the fact that the said company in its own assessment has been treated as not a company in which the public are substantia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as well as the assessment made on the dividend-paying company. It has not been disputed nor can it be disputed that the petitioner company paid tax at the rate of 25% on the dividend income received by it from Burmah-Shell Refineries Limited. Paragraph D of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1964, provides as follows : "In the case of every company, Rate of income-tax On the whole of the total income ... 25%. Provided that a rebate at the rate of ten per cent. on so much of the total income as consists of dividends from an Indian company which is not such a company as is referred to in section 108 of the Income-tax Act and which is wholly or mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or of manufactu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or production of any one or more of the articles specified in the list in Part IV of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1964. One of the articles mentioned in Part IV is " mineral oil ". The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Burmah Shell Refineries Limited [1966] 61 ITR 493, held that the business of the said company could be attributed to the business of manufacture or production of " mineral oil ". Accordingly, it will be eligible to a higher rebate of tax. Thus, the second condition of Paragraph D has also been fulfilled in this case. No appeal has been preferred by the Income-tax Officer or Burmah-Shell Refineries Limited against the said findings of the Appellate Assis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates