9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-1961 - Judge(s) : T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S. K. DAS., J. L. KAPUR., M. HIDAYATULLAH JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. K. DAS J.---This is an appeal with special leave from an order dated May 29, 1956, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Calcutta Bench), Calcutta, disallowing the assessee's claim for deducting a sum of Rs. 1,24,199 odd under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee, appellant before us, is a public limited company with its registered office in Calcutta. Its principal business is the manufacture of aluminium ingots, sheets, circles, aluminium alloys, etc. and production of various aluminium or alloy products. Under a deed of agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act to deduct and pay appropriate income-tax and super-tax on the sums as and when they were credited to the account of the foreign company and (3) as there was no such deduction and payment the appellant should be deemed to be an assessee in default within the meaning of section 18(7) of the Act. The total income-tax and super-tax on the sums credited as aforesaid amounted to Rs. 1,24,1993 nP. The Income-tax Officer gave the appellant time to pay up the said amount on or before March 30, 1951. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that though the sums payable to the foreign company were chargeable to income-tax, the liability to deduct and pay tax under sections 18(3A) and 18(3B) arose not when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by the order complained of, namely, the order dated May 29, 1956, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The appellant thereupon applied to the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Act to make a reference to the High Court on the question as to whether the sum of Rs. 1,24,199.3 nP. incurred by the appellant during the relevant accounting year was deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the question did not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The High Court of Calcutta also rejected the appellant's application under section 66(2) of the Act. The appellant then moved this court for special leave to appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated May 29, 1956, and special leave was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
