9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (5) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J.--This is an appeal under section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The appellant, the National Steel Works Ltd., Bombay, a limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, carried on the business of a " rolling mill " prior to the partition of the country in the territory now in Pakistan. It was a member of the Steel Rolling Mills Association of India and as such was receiving a quota of coal and steel from the Government of India. After the partition, its registered office was shifted to Bombay. It had no factory there for carrying on the business of rolling mill. Though possibly not entitled to receive the quota of coal and steel, it however continued its membership of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of India and from the Provincial Iron Steel Controller, Bombay, or from the Steel Re-Rolling Mills Association of India, Calcutta, or any such other body under the quota system that may be in force from time to time for steel re-rolling mills of the company at Bombay shall be utilised solely for the purposes of the business of the partnership who shall pay for the same." Thereafter, in 1954, the assessee and Irani entered into an agreement whereby the terms of the agreement of September 29, 1948, were modified. The amendments to clause 12 are important and they are quoted below : " IT IS HEREBY AGREED THAT in clause 12 of the Partnership Agreement dated September 29, 1948, the Royalty which is fixed at Rs. 50 per ton shall be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal stated a case to the High Court for the decision of the question whether the sum of Rs, 60,000 received by the assessee company from Irani is a revenue receipt and liable to income-tax. The High Court decided that it was a revenue receipt and liable to tax. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed after obtaining the certificate of fitness from the High Court. The contention of the appellant is that the sum of Rs. 60,000 was paid by Irani to the assessee company in view of the partnership getting the rights under the quota which the assessee company possessed and that therefore the sum represented a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. We do not agree. It is clear from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
