1971 (2) 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

..... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's profits and gains earned in the calendar year 1957 were assessable to tax for the assessment year 1958-59 at the rates prescribed by the Finance Act, 1958, or in accordance with clause 23 of the agreement dated April 1, 1938, entered into between the assessee and the erstwhile Jind State ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. v. Commissioner of Income-tax . Before we deal with these decisions, it will be proper to mention the brief facts and the contention advanced. For the year 1958-59, the income-tax authorities refused to allow a deduction of Rs. 4,981 and Rs. 3,950 paid as commission to Bhriguraj Charity Trust and M/s. Dalmia Jain Charity Trust, respectively. The contention of the assessee is that this commissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We may also add that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mannalal Ratanlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax takes the same view. Reverting to the two Supreme Court decisions, particular emphasis is laid in India Cements' case on the passage in the judgment of Subba Rao J. (as he then was) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Malayalam Plantation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iness from the financial corporation. The loan was held to have been incurred incidentally for carrying on the business. So far as the present case is concerned, none of the requirements of the passage, referred to above, are satisfied. There is no evidence that the business of the assessee was threatened with stoppage or was otherwise to suffer if the stay had not been obtained. Prima facie, stay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Supreme Court. This decision again has no parallel with the case with which we are dealing and the same reasoning applies to it as we have used while dealing with the case of India Cements Ltd. For the reasons recorded above, the second question referred to us must also be answered against the assessee and in favour of the department, that is, in the affirmative. There will be no order as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X