TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (4) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the provisions of the said Act ?" The assessee is 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 wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 have 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the meaning of the Surtax Act. From the fact that 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 forei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or not and whether Indian or non-Indian, which 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 th....