# %1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' PriNJI L1d v. U11Um o/ lntlia

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 596
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1dlu-bea-iwllj-prinji-l1d-v-u11um-o-lntlia-2327
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

1962
,%1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' ..
PriNJI L1d.
v.
U11Um o/ lntlia
K•pur .J.
J!u;;t
5!16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1002) SUPP.
which owna a. fleet of buses a.nd lorries and carriell
on the business of transport
In res1wot of !IBRl'R~·
ment year I !!60-61 it cla.imoo a. development rPbate
on all its plants and machiner.v including buPines.q.
The Income tax Officer diHallowed tho olnim of
rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso
above quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebatfl.
ft was contonderl on behalf of
the petitioner that the proviso oft'cnrls Art. 14 in
that it discriminates betweon machinery which is
office appliance or road transport vehicl<'s and
other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept
such a contention because there is nothing in the
Constitution which prevents the legislBture from
r:hoosing thp, object of taxation from
11mong~t
various classes of machinery for the purpose of
giving d<'vefopment rebate. Tho Constitution rloes
not prohibit any sueh cla.ssifica.tion which has l>l'en
ma.de in the present case.
The petition is wholly without merit and is
thcr1Jforc dismiHSed a.nd the rule is discharged. The
p••titioncr will pny tho costi! of the respondent.
P1iifi(Jn d1'.'IT11i ... 'll'd.
P. V. RAGHAVA REDDI AND AXOTHER
v.
('0lJUIS810XER OF INCOME-TAX
( ll. P. S1~HA, C .. J., ,J. L. KAPt:a, M. HrnAYA·1..-1.1 .. w,
J. C. S11.\11 nncl .r. R. Mn.>1101.KAH, J.T.)
Nou-n ... i1/1111" f"IH1i/"111.1f·. ro111111i"si()11
d1tf' /u-ff1-rr:1•1-1! l1.11
/11rliut,fl1m 11111l 7r-tirl dir1cl/.11 ur tl1rfJu~1/I oll1P.1'-" "' th·· 11011.-1·,,,.;_
,/1 111 r'''"J"""!I --1/ ~lrtlflf(jr!J fllj,..1i,l-/1t1·r1111r, ;J 1'tr."i1.'r,/ in t,1.1·•111/1'
,,.,.,-itJJry--/111/ian /11rf1111•--fo.r:A.ct, 1922 (ll 11/ JC122),,.,.. 4(1J(t,),
·I! f)(r), 43.
The- appellant i\ a firn1 '"°·hich \\'as
~oin~ hu~incss ~11
mica.
To negotiate for ordrrs and I•• hancllc lt-s
other affa~r"
th<- appell..ant engaged a company in Japan ,vliich 1~ adn111tcdly a "non .. rtllii<lcnt" c<1mpany.
By agTr.c1ncnt l)ClWcr.n tl1c
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
597
t\vo fir1ns, <luring the yrars of account the amount of con1mission payable to the Japanese company was received by the
appellant. But this amount could not be sent, due to the
exchange control restrictions, to the Japanese company.
The amount was kept under the instructions of the Japanese
company in a separate account to be held on its behalf to be
applied as instructed. Some of the amount was later paid to
the Japanese company either directly or
through others.
Treating the appellant as 'statutory agent' of the J apanesc
company the Income-tax authoriti.s assessed the appellant
on the amount received for the two account years.
The
appeal to the Commissioner failed. But on further appeal
the Tribunal ordered the cancellation of the assessment. The
Commissioner of Income-tax obtained a reference to the High
Court and the High Court answered the question "whether
the aforesaid sum of Rs. 26,255-0,0 and Rs. I 1,272-0-0 being
selling commission credited to the aforesaid non-resident company's account in t!ie books of the assessee are chargeable in
the hands of the assessee under s. 4(1) (a) for the assessment
years 1949-50 and 1950-51 ?"in favour of the Department.
The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Supreme
Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.
1'hc two main questio11s before the Supreme Court were
whether the appellant was a •statutory agent' for purposes of
s. 43 and whether the income was received by Japanese company in 'the taxable territory'.
Held, thai there was a business connection between the
assessee and the Japanese company sufficient in law for treating the assessee as an agent for purposes of s. 43 and the
appellant was rightly treated as a 'statutory agent•: Before
the money was entered into the account in the name of the
Japanese company and held on its behalf there might be a
relation of debtor and creditor between the-assessee and the
Japanese Company; but after

## Text

1962
,%1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' ..
PriNJI L1d.
v.
U11Um o/ lntlia
K•pur .J.
J!u;;t
5!16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1002) SUPP.
which owna a. fleet of buses a.nd lorries and carriell
on the business of transport
In res1wot of !IBRl'R~·
ment year I !!60-61 it cla.imoo a. development rPbate
on all its plants and machiner.v including buPines.q.
The Income tax Officer diHallowed tho olnim of
rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso
above quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebatfl.
ft was contonderl on behalf of
the petitioner that the proviso oft'cnrls Art. 14 in
that it discriminates betweon machinery which is
office appliance or road transport vehicl<'s and
other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept
such a contention because there is nothing in the
Constitution which prevents the legislBture from
r:hoosing thp, object of taxation from
11mong~t
various classes of machinery for the purpose of
giving d<'vefopment rebate. Tho Constitution rloes
not prohibit any sueh cla.ssifica.tion which has l>l'en
ma.de in the present case.
The petition is wholly without merit and is
thcr1Jforc dismiHSed a.nd the rule is discharged. The
p••titioncr will pny tho costi! of the respondent.
P1iifi(Jn d1'.'IT11i ... 'll'd.
P. V. RAGHAVA REDDI AND AXOTHER
v.
('0lJUIS810XER OF INCOME-TAX
( ll. P. S1~HA, C .. J., ,J. L. KAPt:a, M. HrnAYA·1..-1.1 .. w,
J. C. S11.\11 nncl .r. R. Mn.>1101.KAH, J.T.)
Nou-n ... i1/1111" f"IH1i/"111.1f·. ro111111i"si()11
d1tf' /u-ff1-rr:1•1-1! l1.11
/11rliut,fl1m 11111l 7r-tirl dir1cl/.11 ur tl1rfJu~1/I oll1P.1'-" "' th·· 11011.-1·,,,.;_
,/1 111 r'''"J"""!I --1/ ~lrtlflf(jr!J fllj,..1i,l-/1t1·r1111r, ;J 1'tr."i1.'r,/ in t,1.1·•111/1'
,,.,.,-itJJry--/111/ian /11rf1111•--fo.r:A.ct, 1922 (ll 11/ JC122),,.,.. 4(1J(t,),
·I! f)(r), 43.
The- appellant i\ a firn1 '"°·hich \\'as
~oin~ hu~incss ~11
mica.
To negotiate for ordrrs and I•• hancllc lt-s
other affa~r"
th<- appell..ant engaged a company in Japan ,vliich 1~ adn111tcdly a "non .. rtllii<lcnt" c<1mpany.
By agTr.c1ncnt l)ClWcr.n tl1c
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
597
t\vo fir1ns, <luring the yrars of account the amount of con1mission payable to the Japanese company was received by the
appellant. But this amount could not be sent, due to the
exchange control restrictions, to the Japanese company.
The amount was kept under the instructions of the Japanese
company in a separate account to be held on its behalf to be
applied as instructed. Some of the amount was later paid to
the Japanese company either directly or
through others.
Treating the appellant as 'statutory agent' of the J apanesc
company the Income-tax authoriti.s assessed the appellant
on the amount received for the two account years.
The
appeal to the Commissioner failed. But on further appeal
the Tribunal ordered the cancellation of the assessment. The
Commissioner of Income-tax obtained a reference to the High
Court and the High Court answered the question "whether
the aforesaid sum of Rs. 26,255-0,0 and Rs. I 1,272-0-0 being
selling commission credited to the aforesaid non-resident company's account in t!ie books of the assessee are chargeable in
the hands of the assessee under s. 4(1) (a) for the assessment
years 1949-50 and 1950-51 ?"in favour of the Department.
The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Supreme
Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.
1'hc two main questio11s before the Supreme Court were
whether the appellant was a •statutory agent' for purposes of
s. 43 and whether the income was received by Japanese company in 'the taxable territory'.
Held, thai there was a business connection between the
assessee and the Japanese company sufficient in law for treating the assessee as an agent for purposes of s. 43 and the
appellant was rightly treated as a 'statutory agent•: Before
the money was entered into the account in the name of the
Japanese company and held on its behalf there might be a
relation of debtor and creditor between the-assessee and the
Japanese Company; but after the money was credited in the
books of account in the name of the Japanese company it
belonged to it because it was held for and on behalf of that
company and was at its disposal. Therefore the income was
received in the taxable territory within the meaning of
s. 4(1) (a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
Held, further, that els. (a) and (c) of s. 4(1) can be read
disjunctively and that it is not necessary that the income must
not only he received in the taxable territoric-s but also must
accrue or arise in the taxable ten·itories.
1.'urner Morrison & Oo. Ltd. v. Oom1nis8ionet of Jnconie-.
tax (1953] 23 I.T.R. 152, followed.
1962
P. V. /luthava lledi..•
v,
Comtn·fasion1r of
lncom~afax
J!J(j2
P. Y. Batlaav" Rtd•li
v.
Comnti;Jioner of
/&OMt~ta.x
lli~atullah J.
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
CIVIL
APn:LLATE
JURISDICTION : Civil
Appeals Nos. 325 and 326 of 1960.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
Febrnary 21. 1956, of tho former Andnra High
Court in case Referred No. 50 of 1954.
R. GunaprUhy Iyer, R. Thiagurajun and G.Gopal.a·
!.:rishnan, for the appellants.
H. N. Srmyul. Additional SoUcitor General of
India, K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and P. D. Mtnon, for
the respondent.
1962. January 16. -Tho Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
HlDAYATl:LLAH J.-The appellant is a firm
at Gudur (Andhra Pradesh), which was doing
business in Mica under the name and style of
tho Continental Export and Import Company.
During the yea.rs of account, 1948-49 and 1949-50
(corrlll!ponding to the assPssment years, 19'19-50 and
1050-51 ), the aBl!Ot'BCC firm exported Mica to Japan.
Mica was not directly exportable to Japanese
huyers during these years, as Japan was under military occupation, but to a State Organisation called
fuki·Cho (Board of Trade). To negotiate for order
and to handle its other affairs in Japan in connection therewith, the aesesseo firm
engaged SanEi Trading Co. Ltd., Tokyo, as its agents.
The
Japanese Company was ~dmittedly a 'non·resident'
Company. Two agreements were entered into by
the assessee firm and the Japanese Company, the
first for the quarter, July to September 1948, during
which period a commis.~ion of 4 per cent on the gross
sale proceeds was payable to the Japanese Company,
and tho second, for an indefinite period, with the
commission reduced to 2 per cent.
During the years of account the amount com·
mission Jue to thl' Japanese Company 11·us respec-
. J
n
"' ''"' Ii )
I J.>o
11 •)-.)_8 ° Tl1c
0 n
tive y 1"8. _h,-..,.,.:· -
a11~
\i" •
• ,-'-
-o.
.::n.
amounts(i.ucluJcJ Ill the prwc of .\Ilea expurtoJ)wcro
received by tho a8sessoe firm iu Imliu, but due to
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
599
the restrictions imposed by the Exchange Control
laws, they oould not be sent to the Japanese
Company. The agreements between the assessee
firm and the Japanese Company, therefore, provided
for this contingency by the inclusion of the following term:
"In view of the difficulties in this oountry
it is requested that the first party credits all
these amounts to the account of the second
party with them without remitting the same
until definite instructions are received by the
first party."
During the two account years, a total amount of
Ra.13,319-12-4 was paid to the Japanese Company
either directly or through others, to whom the
assessee firm was instructed by the Japanese Company to pay the amount. The Income-tax authorities
treated the aasessee firm as the 'statutory agent'
of the Japanese Company, and as868sed tax on the
two amounts in the respective years of assessment.
The order of the Income-tax Officer was oonfirmed
on appeal; but the Tribunal set aside the order on
the ground that the income to the Japanese
Company had accrued
or arisen in Japan and
could not be said to have been received by the
Japanese Company in the taxable territories, since
a. 4(l)(a) was subordinate to s. 4(l}(c). The Tribunal thus concluded :
"The referrence in section 4( 1 )(a) to
income 'received in India' can, in our opinion,
refer only to the situation more specifically
provided for in section 4(l)(b) as 11ub·section(a)
provides a genera.I cover for both the immediately following eub-l!OOtions (b) and (c).
Section 4( I)( a) cannot therefore by it.self add
a new liability to non-residents the extent of
which is clearly delimited under section
4(1) ( o) of the Act "to only incomes that accrue
to them within the taxable territories. To read
J961 --
P. V. Bah•• R.afl
v.
Oommiasiunerof
lncomr~
Hidtualullalo J.
1162
P. Y. Rqliara R1dJ i
v.
c ..... tuio111r of
/~-lo
Hid .,.iull ah J.
Goo
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1002) SUPP.
any further in section 4(l)(a) will totally
nullify the effects of section 4 (I ) ( (·).
Income that has accrued 011(·!' abroad
cannot by any means accrue again in fndia.
If euch income iB later rl'mitt.-d to In1lia
and receiv<'d by or on bclialf of :<tu·h 11ouresidents in India suoh sub.icq1H·11t. recei1•t
cannot be chargeable under tlw Act."
The &l!lleSllmont was. theroforo, or<1"rnd to lw eant,>elled. The CommisRioner of Incomrdax, It •wev•:r,
obtained a reference to tho High Court (lf ~fadra.8
on tho question :
"Whether tho afuresaid sum of H~. :!(),:!i);°).l).fl
and Rs. ll,::!72-0-0 being selling
commio·
sic;n credited to tho aforl·said 11011-rc:<iuent
company's account in the Books of the
aesessee are chargeable in the hands of tho
asaeseee under s. 4 (l)(a) for the asscssmc11t
years 1949-50 and 1950-51 ?"
The High Court answtired the question ,i.,a.i11>t
the aslle88ee firm. The High Court observed th~t 1 hl:
learned Advocate for the assesseo firm "conft•sscd
his inability to support the decision of the tribunal
on the grounds on which it rests". The High Court
further obtrerved that the answer to the qul"8tio11
did nut "admit of any doubt or difficulty". The
High Court, however, granted n el·rtifirute, uud
these appeals have bticn filed.
In our opinion, the
High court was right in the auswer it gave tu the
question, for reasons which we sh1ill
persently
indicate.
Under s. 42, all income, profits 01· gains accruing or a.rising, whether directly, or indirectly through
or from any business connection in the taxable territories are deemed to be income accruing or arising
within tho taxable territories, nm! if the person
entitled to the income, profit<! or gain8 is nut
resident in the taxable territorie~, it io charg1·able tn
income-tax either in his namo ur in the name ol his
2 s.C.R.
SUPREME COURT HEPORTS
601
agent, and in the latter case, such ag<'nt is deemed
to be; for all the pnrposos of the Act, the asscssoc>
in respect of such income-tax. Tho provisos to
the ~ection enable tho application of s. 18, and t.he
tax may be recovered by deduction under tint
section and the agent or any person who apprehends that he may be asses8ed as sud1 an agent
is also enab!t•d to retain out of the money
payable to tho 11011-residont person u. sum equal to
his estimated liability. The section thu~ creates
a vicarious liability, in so for as th" rig<
0nt is concerned, for the tax which the non-resident hris to
pay : but as a safeguard for him, he is <·nabletl to
retain from tho money ho has to pay, a sum cquril
to his own liability in the event of his being treated
as tho assessee.
Section 43 lays down who can be
deemed to be an ag(\nt, and it is provided that any
person having any business conm·ction with a nonresident person or through whom the non-resident
is in receipt of any income, profits or gains id to b<'
deemed to be such an agent, if lho Income-tax
Officer has caused a notice to be served of his
intention of treating him as the agent of the nonresident person.
Such persons are ·conveniently
described as "statutory agents."
In the present case, there is no doubt that the
asscssee firm must be treated as a statutory agent.
In Turner 1lforrison &: Co. Ltd. v. Com1nissirmer of
lncome-t<iX ('), this Court held that a person who
is not an agent of the non-resident person can be
appointed an agent for the purposes of s. 43, pro·
vided there subsists a 'business connection' between
him and the non-resident person. It was also held
that such agent was vicariously liable for-the tax
on income described in ss.40 and 4:.l. There can be
no question in this ca.so that a 'business connection'
subsisted during the yea.rs in question, and the
appalla.nt firm could be treated as an assessee for
purposes of s. 42. What was contended was that
(1) [1953] 23 l,T.R. 152.
196'!,
L"' V. llaghal'a /lP1l•i
••
Co1nmis~irm<~r of
/ncomt~iav
l/ida;·atu/l11h .J.
196!
B, V. B.,A ... &dii
v.
c.-iuio7111' q/
lflCOJJk'·(QX
H~/aJiJ.
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
the view of the Tribunal of s. 4( I) is the right view
of the la.w. Section 4(1), prior to its amendment
in 1950 by the Adaptation ef La.we Order, 1950,
rea.d :
''4. (I) Subject to the provisions of this Act,
the tots.I income of &ny previous year of
any pel'l!On includes a.I! income, profits
a.nd gs.ins from w.ba.tever source derived
which-
( a.)
a.re received or are deen:ed to be reoei·
ved in Britiah India. in such year by or
on behalf of such person, or
(b) if such person, is resident in British
India. during sur.h year,-
( i) a.cc rue or a.rise or are deemed to
11.ccrue
arise to him in British
India. during such yea.r, or
(ii) a.corue or a.rise to him without
British India. during such year, or
(iii) ha. ving accrued or a.risen to him
without British India. before the
beginning of such.year a.nd after the
let day of Ailril, 1933, are brought
into or received in British India. by
him during euch yea.r, or
(c) if such
person is
not resident in
British India. during such yea.r, aocrue
or a.rise or a.re deemed to a.ooure or arise
to him in British India. duriIJ!(
such
year:"
The oontention ii that this income cannot be
deemed to be received in the taxable. territoriea
(then British India.) in the years of account. It is
urged tha.t the. Japanese Company did not ac:tua.l·
ly re-0eive it in British India., a.nd that there was
only a. relation of debtor and creditor between the
a.seessce firm a.nd the Ja.pa.nese Company. Till
the money was actually paid over to the Japanese
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
603
Company, a mere entry in the account books of
the firm was not a receipt by the Japanese Company, and a mere l'lntry of an item in the account
books has not been deemed to be a receipt by any
provision of the Act, which, it is said, always states
clearly when a fiction is to be applied. It is
also argued that cl. (a) of s. 4(1) is delimited by
ol.(c).
Clauses (a) and (cl of s.4(1) are not interdependent. In Turner MorriB<Yn'B case ('), it was
observed by this Court that,
"the whole object of that section (s.42)
is to make certain income, profits and gains
to be deemed to arise in India. so as to bring
them to charge.
The receipt of income,
proJits and gains being one of the tests of
liability, where the income, profits and gains
are actually received in India it is no longer
necessary for the revenue authorities to have
recourse to the fiction;"
After referring· to certain authorities in which
this was so held, this Court pointed out :
"Section 4( 1 )(a) in terms is, unlike Section 4(l)(b) or 4 (l)(c), not confined in its
application, to any particular category
of
a.ssessees.
Section 4 ( l )(a) is general and
applies to a resident or a non-resident person."
It was rightly pointed out by the High Court in
judgment under appeal that ;
"Actual or deemed receipt, of income in
the taxable territories by or on behalf of nonresidents attracts tax under section 4(1) (a)
even though the income may not be chargeable under section 4(l)(c) by reason of its
having aoorued or arisen outaide. Receipt of
income within the taxable territories by its~lf
attracts tax whether the recipient is a resident
or non-resident and whether the income
\II [1953] '3 I.T.R. 152.
11152
P. V. Rag/ma RedJ/J
•
Commissiontr of
lncomt•tax
Hid41atollah J,
•
'"'
l'. JI. R•tMflO lit"1;
V,·
Co.w;»io11er d
1 .... 1,,\
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
accrued or a.rose within tho taxable territoric~
or outside. So much is plain on the language
of section 4(1)(a.) and (c)."
In our opinion, clauses (a) and (c) of s.4( I)
can bo road diejunctivcly, and cl.(a), which provides
for receipt of income, profits and gains in the
taxable territories cannot ho subjected to the
limitation that tho income must also accrue or
arise iu the taxable territories.
To make cl.(<L)
depend on cl. c is to make the "accrual" the test,
while cl. (a) only conside~·receipt in the taxable
territories sufficient. The .clauses are capable of
being road independcnt'fj',
though, sometimes,
they may operate together.
Thie leaves over the question which wa.q car·
uetltly argued, namely, whether the amounts in the
two account years can be said to be reooi vccl by
the Japanese Company in the taxable territoriC's.
'Die argument is that the money was not act.ually
received, but the a.sseaseo firm was a debtor in
respect of that amount and unless the entry can
be deemed to be a payment or reooipt cl. (a) cannot apply. We need not consider the fiction, for
it is not neoell88.ry to go to the fiction at all.
The
agreement, from which we have quoted the relevant
term, provided that the Japanese Company desired
that thl' &111e88Ce firm should open an account in
the name of the Japanese Company in iheir books
of account, credit the amounts in that account,
and deal with those amounts
according to the
instructions of the Japanese Company.
Till the
money was so credited, there might be a. relation
of debtor and creditor ; but after the a.mounts were
credited, the money was held by the &e!le88ee firm
as a. depositee.
The money then belonged to the
Ja.pn.neee Company and was held for and on beht\lf
of the Company and was at its <lisposa.l. The char·
acter of the money ch1mged from a debt to a
deposit in such the samo wa.y as if it was credited
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
605
J9t2
in a Bank to the account of the Company. Thus,
the amount mnst he held, on the terms of the
aO'reement, to have been received by the Japanese
C;mpany, and this attrncts the application
of
s.(4)(l)(a).
Indeed, the Japanese Company did
<li;poses of a part of those arnrmnts by instructing
the assessee firm that they be applied in a particular
way. Jn our opinion, the High Court was right in
answering the question against the assessee.
P. V. Rathava Rttldi
v.
The appeals fail, an<l 11.re dismissed with costs,
one hearing foe.
Appeal dismi88ed.
COMMTSSIO';ER OF INCOME.TAX KER.ALA
v.
'TELEN RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD .
. srxHA, c .. r., J. L. KAruR, M. HmAvATULLAH,
.J.C. SHAH and J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.)
Incon1e Tax-Lo.<J~ incurred in Travancore Stat£ in 1946-
·if!JJlication of India la•o,9 to tl1f' /.._'Jtate-Asse-9.r;ee, if entitled to
rarry Joru·ard the fnss to six ~1ears once the rigf,,t lapsed under
1';fafe lau)~~-'l'ravanrore l11cnrne-tax .. Act, I 121 M.FJ. (Travancore
XX!lf of 1121 M. fi:.) .<. 32-India1' lnrome-tax Act, 1922
(11 of 1922), s. 21-ludinn Finance Art, J.?50 (2•j of 1950),
•· 12-Taxntion lntr-< (Part B St,.le-<) (RemomI nf D(fjicultie")
Ord<>r, 1950, para 3.
The respondent company was incorporated in the former
State of Travancore.
The dispute was ahout the right of
the respondent assessee company to c3rry for\vard the loss of
the years 1946 under the provisions of the Travancore Act
read with s. 24 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and the
Taxation laws (Part B States)(Rcmoval of Difficulties) Order,
19:10, to the assessment year 1951-52 in the assessme"nt of the
company for its year of account. The Income-tax Officer
held that the loss of the year 1946 could not be carried for-
\vard to that year, since it had lapsed after two years under
s. 32 of the Travancore Act ands. 24 (2) was not applicable,
in dew 6f para 3 of the order.
Held, that the Taxation laws (Part B State) (Removal
of Difficulties) Order, 1950, passed under s. 12 of the Indian
Commissioner of
lruome-tax
Hid ryatuilah J.
1962
J anum:Y Ili.