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

1981 (4) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a non-resident shipping company incorporated in Sweden. For the assessment years 1965-66 and 19667-67, the , ITO had assessed the assessee-company on its profits under the Surtax Act. In appeals before the AAC, the validity of the assessments was challenged on the only ground that the provisions of the Surtax Act, 1964, had no application to non-resident companies of which the assessee-company was one. The AAC disposed of both the appeals by his consolidated order. He held that the assessee-company was a company within the meaning of the I.T. Act, 1961, and that by force of s. 2(9) of the C. (P.) S. T. Act, 1964 the provisions of the I.T. Act applied to an assessee which was a company within the meaning of the I.T. Act. He further held tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e no application to and do not govern non-resident companies and, therefore, the provisions of the Surtax Act cannot be made applicable to the assessee, a non-resident company. Learned counsel has further submitted that just as the Surtax Act now provides for the levy of a special tax called surtax on the profits of a company, so also formerly the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, and the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, provided for the levy of a special tax on the profits of a company, that each of the later two Acts contained the definition of company (section 2(8) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, and section 2(5) of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947), even though the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, then in force contained an analogous defi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the Surtax Act contains no definition of company, it does not follow that the said Act has no application to non-resident companies. If it is accepted that section 2(9) of the Surtax Act does not have the effect of making the definition of company as given in the Incometax Act applicable to the provisions of the former Act, then according to the principles of interpretation of statutes the expression 'company' occurring in the charging section and other provisions of the Surtax Act must be understood in the sense in which it is understood in common parlance and also legal parlance and takes in all incorporated companies, no matter whether they were incorporated in our country or in a foreign country. The word 'company' is understood by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is declared by general or special order of the Board to be 'company' for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, comes under the third part. The definition of 'company' in section. 2(5A) of the Indian Incometax Act, 1922, also can be split up into three such identical parts. Now, if the assessee-company falls only under the aforementioned third part of the definition, there may be some scope for the doubt whether a company which is declared by a general or special order of the Central Board of Revenue to, be a company for the purposes of the income-tax ipso facts becomes a company within the meaning of the Surtax Act by force of section 2(9) of the latter Act. In that case, there may be scope for the argument that the assessee became a company f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a company assessed under the I.T. Act, 1961, it would come within the purview of this Act. Learned advocate for the assessee drew our attention to the definition section in the I.T. Act, 1961, which started by saying " For the purpose of this Act unless the context otherwise indicated ........ He, therefore, emphasised that the definition provided by the I.T. Act, 1961, was only for the purpose of that Act and the I.T. Act was a special Act and, therefore, the definition therein could not be extended to cover a company which was not otherwise a company. In this connection, he drew our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 STC 446; AIR 1955 SC 661, that when a .....

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