# 496 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS [1962] stJt>i>. THE FAZTLKA ELECTRIC >SUPPLY CO. LTD v. THE CO:IJMISSIONER OF JNCO)IE-TAX, DELHI

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 496
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-04-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1961
- **Bench:** K. Da~, J. c. SHAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/496-supreme-court-reports-1962-stjt-i-the-faztlka-electric-supply-co-ltd-v-the-2395
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

income Ta:r-.1Js~·ts81nent of };xces8 anlount rtaliscd over
21,•riltc11
dou:n
1:uf-ue-Ellclric
Supply Company-Term of
license-Option for Got·trnment or local bodies to parcltasc the
Company-Sale by Company, 1f sale or compulsory rzcqui,,if;on
-India EIPdricity Ad 19/0JX of 1910), ,,., 3.7 Indian Income
1'ax Act 1922 (/ l of 1922), s. 10(2) (vii).
1'hc appellant carried on the business of generating and
suppl)ing tlcctricity in the to\\111 of Fazilka in accordance with
the tcrn1s
of
a
license
for fifteen
vcars.
Clause
9(a) of the license gave the Government' an
option to
acquire the undertaking on expiration of fifteen years fron1 the
date of the license.
'l'he said option was in accordance to
sub. s. ( 1) of s. 7 of the Electricity Ar.t, 1910.
The Government of Punjab exercised its option and acquired lhe undertaking on a payment which \\·aa in excess of the written down
value of the building, machinery and plant of the undertaking.
For the assessrnent of the appcllanl for the rele\·enl year, the
Income ·rax Officer cOrnputed such excess realisation over the
writ •en do\\'n \'i:due ;;s did not exceed the difference he tween
the original cost and the written down value and held the
said sum as taxable in the hands of the appellant by reason of
the provisions ins. 10(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
The
appellant contended that no part of the excess was taxable
since 1hc undcrlaking had not been voluntarily sold, but had
been cornpulsorily acquired by the Govrrnment ; and on a
proper construction of 1 he Electricity Act and the rules made
thereunder, this so-called sale was really a compulsory acquisition of property and not a S>ie as legally understood.
'
lleld, that from the provisions of the Electricity Act,
1910, read along~·ith thr. rules marle thereunder, it is manifest
that the condition as to the option of purchase either by the
local authority or Governrnent. is the result of- an agreement
between the applicant who had applied for license and the
Government who granted the lh:ense.
The true scope and effect of s. 7 of the Electricity Act is tha
it is an enabling ::icction and merely provides for the optio11
of purchase to he exercised Cln the expiration of a certain
period agreed to between rhe parties, and s. IO of the Act
3 s.c.:R.
SUPREME CobRT REPORTS
497
further provides that in an appropriate case Government may
even forego the option. The scheme of the Electricity Act as
indicated by the relevant provisions thereof and the rules made
thcreuμder, shows beyond any doubt that the option of purchase is the result of a mutual agreement between the parties,
the applicant for the license on one hand and the Government
on the other.
Held, further, thats. 7 docs not provide for a compulsory purchase or compulsory acquisition without reference to
and independent of any agreement by the licensee.
The
expression "compulsory purchase" in the second proviso to
sub-s. (1) of s. 7 is another enabling provision which enables
a party to specify in the license such percentage as should be
added to the value of the building, plant and machinery etc.
when the option is exercised, notwithstanding the use of the
expression "compulsory
purchase" in
the
said
second
proviso, there is no compulsory
purchase
or compulsory
acquisition in the sense in which that expression is ordinarily
understood.
Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar,
(1928) L. R. 55 I.A. 243, Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation
v. Commissioner of Income-tax, WMt Bengal, (1951) 19 I.T.R.
406.

## Text

1162
. Match J.
496 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS [1962] stJt>i>.
THE FAZTLKA ELECTRIC >SUPPLY CO. LTD .
v.
THE CO:IJMISS!ONER OF JNCO)IE-TAX, DELHI
("'. K. DA~, J. c. SHAH, .T.J.)
income Ta:r-.1Js~·ts81nent of };xces8 anlount rtaliscd over
21,•riltc11
dou:n
1:uf-ue-Ellclric
Supply Company-Term of
license-Option for Got·trnment or local bodies to parcltasc the
Company-Sale by Company, 1f sale or compulsory rzcqui,,if;on
-India EIPdricity Ad 19/0JX of 1910), ,,., 3.7 Indian Income
1'ax Act 1922 (/ l of 1922), s. 10(2) (vii).
1'hc appellant carried on the business of generating and
suppl)ing tlcctricity in the to\\111 of Fazilka in accordance with
the tcrn1s
of
a
license
for fifteen
vcars.
Clause
9(a) of the license gave the Government' an
option to
acquire the undertaking on expiration of fifteen years fron1 the
date of the license.
'l'he said option was in accordance to
sub. s. ( 1) of s. 7 of the Electricity Ar.t, 1910.
The Government of Punjab exercised its option and acquired lhe undertaking on a payment which \\·aa in excess of the written down
value of the building, machinery and plant of the undertaking.
For the assessrnent of the appcllanl for the rele\·enl year, the
Income ·rax Officer cOrnputed such excess realisation over the
writ •en do\\'n \'i:due ;;s did not exceed the difference he tween
the original cost and the written down value and held the
said sum as taxable in the hands of the appellant by reason of
the provisions ins. 10(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
The
appellant contended that no part of the excess was taxable
since 1hc undcrlaking had not been voluntarily sold, but had
been cornpulsorily acquired by the Govrrnment ; and on a
proper construction of 1 he Electricity Act and the rules made
thereunder, this so-called sale was really a compulsory acquisition of property and not a S>ie as legally understood.
'
lleld, that from the provisions of the Electricity Act,
1910, read along~·ith thr. rules marle thereunder, it is manifest
that the condition as to the option of purchase either by the
local authority or Governrnent. is the result of- an agreement
between the applicant who had applied for license and the
Government who granted the lh:ense.
The true scope and effect of s. 7 of the Electricity Act is tha
it is an enabling ::icction and merely provides for the optio11
of purchase to he exercised Cln the expiration of a certain
period agreed to between rhe parties, and s. IO of the Act
3 s.c.:R.
SUPREME CobRT REPORTS
497
further provides that in an appropriate case Government may
even forego the option. The scheme of the Electricity Act as
indicated by the relevant provisions thereof and the rules made
thcreuμder, shows beyond any doubt that the option of purchase is the result of a mutual agreement between the parties,
the applicant for the license on one hand and the Government
on the other.
Held, further, thats. 7 docs not provide for a compulsory purchase or compulsory acquisition without reference to
and independent of any agreement by the licensee.
The
expression "compulsory purchase" in the second proviso to
sub-s. (1) of s. 7 is another enabling provision which enables
a party to specify in the license such percentage as should be
added to the value of the building, plant and machinery etc.
when the option is exercised, notwithstanding the use of the
expression "compulsory
purchase" in
the
said
second
proviso, there is no compulsory
purchase
or compulsory
acquisition in the sense in which that expression is ordinarily
understood.
Sakalaguna Nayudu v. Chinna Munuswami Nayakar,
(1928) L. R. 55 I.A. 243, Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation
v. Commissioner of Income-tax, WMt Bengal, (1951) 19 I.T.R.
406.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 183 of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated'
April 24, 1959. of the Punjab High Court in I.T.R.
No. 18 of 1954.
S. K. Kapur, Bislw,mbar Das and K.K. Jain, for
the appellant. ·
K. N. Rajagopal Sa8tri and D. ,Gupta, for the
respondent.
1962, March 1.
The Judgment · of the Court
was delivered bJ
S. K. DAa, J.-On July 23, 1934 the then
Government of the Punjab granted a licence under
a. 3 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910)
(hereinafter called the Electricity Act) to two persona named Harbhagwan Nanda and Harcharan
. Dass for the generation and supply of electric energy
J96t
The Ft1;:,ilkti EJ1ctric
SupplJ Co. Lti.
v •
. The Commissioner flf
Income-tax, Delhi.
DasJ.
1962
1'ht Fa~illu1 J::lectric
Supp~ C•. /,Id.
v.
Thi CommiJsiomr of
lnctmepw, D1thi
DIU J.
49S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
in the town of .Fazilka.
The licence, which is
markt•d annPxure 'A' nnd forms part oft.he >tMement of the case, contained a clause, viz. cl. !!(I)
which read 118 follows :
"9. (I) 'fht., option of purchase givt>n by
sub-section (I) of section 7 of the (Elt>ctricity)
Act shall first be exercisable 011 the expiration
of 15 years from the date of the notification
of this licence and on the expiration of every
subsequent period of 10 years. The percentage of the value to be determined in accordance with and for the purpose of sub-&•ction
(I) of section 7 of the (Electricity) Act of lands,
buildings, works, materials and plant of the
licensee therein mentioned to be added under
the second proviso of that sub-section to such
value on account of compulsory purchase
shall be 20 percent."
Under this clause, read with a. 7 of Electricity Act,
the Government ha<l an option of purchasing the
undertaking on tho expiration of 15 years from the
date of the license and on the expiration of eve,ry
subsequent period of ten years. In 1935, about a
year after the grant of the license, a public limited
company under the name and style of the Fazilka
Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which is the appellant
herein, was incorporafod, and it acquired the rights
and previleges of the license known as the Fazilka
Electric License, 1931.
The appellant carried on
the busineBB of generating and supplying electricity
in the town of Fazilka in accordance with the terms
of the license for 15 years.
On the expiration of 15
years from the date of license, the Government of
the Punjab exercised its option and acquired tho
undertaking on July 23, 1949 on a total payment
of Rs. 3,'l!..COO/-, which was in excess of the written
down valut of the building, machinery and plant of
tho undertaking.
In connection with the assessment of the appellant for the year 1950-51, the
-
38.0.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
49~
Income-tax Officer computed such excess realisation
over the written down value as did not exceed the
difference between the original cost and the written
down value, at Rs. 77, 700/- and held that this sum
of Rs. 77,700/- was taxable in the hands of the
appellant by reason of the provisions ins. 10(2)(vii)
of the Indian Income-tax Aot, 1922. The appellant
contended that no part of the excess over the
written down value was taxable since the undertaking had not been voluntarily sold, but haq been
compulsorily acquired by the Government; therefore, the transaction was not a sale within the
meaning of the provisions in s. 10(2)(vii) of the
Income-tax Act.
Both the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate
Assistant Commissioner repelled this contention of
the appellant. On au appeal to the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal also held against
the appellant and came to the conclusion that there
·was a sale of the building machinery and plant of
the undertaking within the meaning of s. 10(2)(vii)
of the Income-tax Act. The appellant then moved
the Tribunal for a reference of the following ·
question of law which it said arose out of the
Tribunal's order ;
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, and on a true interpretation of section 7(1) of the Indian Electricity
Act and clause 9 of the Fazilka Electric
License, 1934, the transaction, by which the
Government acquired the undertaking, could
'be regarded as a sale within .the meaning of
section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act?"
The Tribunal referred the question to the High
Court.
The High Court answered the question
against the appellant. The appellant then asked
for a certificate under s. 66A(2} of the Income-tax
Aot and having obtained such a certificate, has preferred the present appeal to this Court.
The Fari/k4 Electric
Su.pply Co. Ltt.
v.
The Commissio1Ur of
Income-tax, Del hi
1962
T1rt Fa.zilka EltCtric
Supply C.. f.td.
v.
The Commissi01lt'r of
lncom•·laJt, Del/11
Das J.
500 SUPREME oouitT REPoRTs [1962] sui>i>.
t:iection 10(1) of the Income-tax Act states
that Income-tax shall be payable by an asse~sec
undor the head "Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation" in respect of the profit or gains
of any business, profession or vocation carried on
by the assessce. Suh-sectiun (2) of the said section
states that such profits or gains shall be computed
after making certain allowances referred to in els.
(i} to (xv).
Clause (vii) relates to an allowance in
respect of any building, machinl'fy or plant wbirh
has been sold or discarded or demolished or des·
troy(,'<I, the allowance being the amount by which
the written down value thereof exceeds the amount
for which the building, machinery or plant. as the
case may be, is actually sold or its scrap value ; the
second proviso to the clause states that where the
amount for which any such building, machinery or
plant is sold, whether during the continuance of the
business or after the cessation thereof, exceeds the
written down value, so much of the excess as does
not exceed the difference between the original cost
and the written down value shall be deemed to be
profits of the previous year in which the sale took
place. It is not disputed before us that if what
took place on .July, L3, 1949 in exercise of the option
given to the Government under cl. 9 of the licenAe
read with s. i and other provisions of the Electricity Act, was a sale within the meaning of clause
(vii), then the amount which the Income·tax Officer
determined to be Hs. 77 ,iOO/- would be taxable in
the hands of the appellant as profits within the
meaning of the said clause. Therefore, the answer
to the question which was referred to the High
Court depends on whether them was a sale of the
building, machinery and plant of the undertaking
in question.
The learned Advocate for the appellant
has contented before us that the High Court was in
error in holding that there was a sale of the building, machinery and plant of the appellant's
-
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
501
undertaking. He has submitted that a sale involves
mutual agreement and a contract of sale of goods
is a contract whereby the seller transfer;; or agrees
to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for
a price. He .has argued that on a proper construction of the provisions of the Electricity Act and the
rules made thereunder, the so-called sale in the
present case was really a compulsory acquisition
of property and not a sale as legally understood ;
therefore, s. 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act was
not attracted to the transaction in question and the
excess over the written down value could not be
deemed to be profits in the hands of the appellant.
It is necessa.ry to read here some of the provisions of the Electricity Act and rules made thereunder. Section 3 of the Electricity Act states in
effect that the State Government may; on application made in the prescribed form and on payment
of the prescribed fee, grant to any person a license
to supply (electric) energy in any specified area.
Sub-section (2) of s. 3 states that in respect of
· every such license and the grant thereof certain
provi~ions shall have effect : one of these provisions
is· that any person applying for a J icensc shall
publish a notice of his application in the prescribed
manner and with the prescribed particulars, and no
license shall be granted until all objections received
by the. State Government with referencs thereto
have been considered by it ; another provision is
that the provisions contained in the Schedule to
to the Electricity Act shall be, deemed to be incorporated with and to form part of every license
granted save in so far as they are expressly added
to, varied or exempted by the license. Sections 5
and 7 deal with the purchase of the undertaking in
certain circumstances and s. 10 empowers the State
Government to vary the terms of purchase. Notwithstftnding ss. 5, 7 and 8, the State Government
may, in any license to be granted under the Elec-
~ricity Act, vary t~e terms a~d conditions upo~
1962
The Faz.ilka Ele ctric
Supply Co. Ltd.
v.
The Commissioner of
lncomr.·tax, De/hi
Das ,f.
1962
Tht Fa::ilka Efr.cl-ric
Sunry Co. Ltd.
v.
The r.ouunis.1fontr of
fnc1m~·ltu, Delli i
--
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP .
.
which, and the periods on the expiration of which,
the licensee shall ho bound to sell his undertaking,
or direct that subject to such conditions 11nd restrictions, if any, as it may think fit to impose, the
provisions of the said sections or any of them shall
not appl.v.
Xow, we may rP,ad s. 7 so far as it is
relevant for our purpose.
"7. (!)Where a license has been granted
to any person not being a local authority, and
the whole of the area of supply is included in the
area
for which a single
local
authority is constituted, the local authority ehall, on
the expiration of such period, not exceeding
fifty years, and of every
such subsequent
period not exceeding twenty years, as shall
be specified in this behalf in tho license, have
the option of purchasing the undertaking, and
if th1i local authority, with
the previous
sanction of the State Go\·ernmcnt, elects to
purchase, the licensee shall sell the undertaking to the local aul hority on payment of
the value of all lands,
buildings,
works,.
materials .and plant of the licensee suitable
to, and used by him for, the purposes of the
undertaking, other than a generating station
declared by the license not to form part of
the undertaking for the purpose of purchase,
such value to be, in case of difference of dispute, determined by arbitration :
Provided that the value of such lands,
buildings, works,
materials and plant shall be
deemed to be their fair market-value at the time
of purchase, duo regard being had to the nature
and condition for the time being of such lands,
buildings,
works, materials and plant, and to the
state of repair t.hereof, and to the circumstance
that they are in such a position as to be ready for
immediate working and to the suitability of the
ljarne for the ~urposee of the underta~ :
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
503
Provided also that there shall be added to
such valu~ as aforesaid such percentage, if any,
not exceedmg twenty per centum on that value as
may be specified in the license, on account of compulsory purchase.
(2) Where-
( a) the local authority does not elect to
purchase under sub-section (1), or
(b) the whole of the area of supply is not
included in the area for which a single
local authority is constituted ; or
( c) a license supplies energy from the same
generating station to two or more areas
. of supply, each controlled by its own local
authority, and has been granted a license
in
respect
of each
area of supply,
the State Government shall have the like option
upon the like terms and conditions.
(3)
(4)
(5)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
•
"
The section gives to the local authority and if the
local authority does not elect to purchase, to the
State Government, an option to
purchase the
undertaking. If neither is willing to exercise the
option on the expiry of periods referred to therein
then the license may be revoked on an application
or by consent of the licensee.
In that case
s. 8 lays down that tl;te licensee has the option to
dispose of his undertaking to any other person within six months. If the licensee fails to do this, then
the Government may remove the works at the cost
of the licensee as laid down in s. 5 of the Electricity Act.
· ·
1962
The Fll1:.ilka 11/ectric
Sup;ty Co, Ltd .
••
Tire Commissiorur of
lneume-tax, Delhi
Das J.
Tk .. F1U.ilka Ekttr i:
Supply Co. lid.
v.
Tiu Co111mi1Mnt-r Gf
/ncnme-tnx, Delhi
Das.!.
504 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP·
\Vo may now turn to tho rules in so far as
they are relevant to the point under consideration.
The rules lay down that every application for a
license shall be accompanied by copies of a draft license
as proposl'l.l by the 11pplicant, and the draft licenRC
8hall contain, among other particulars, tho proposed
periods after which tho right to purchase is to take
effect and a statement of any special terms of
purchase or orders proposed to be made under s. 10
and any proposed modification of the Schedule to bo
made under s. 3, sub-s.(2), ol. (f). The applic(tnt shall
then publish a notice of his application by public
advertisement, and such advertisement shall include inter alia the draft license. Where any
person desires to have any amendment made in
tho draft license, ho shall deliver a statement of
the Sil.me.
The rules further provide for a local
flnquiry if any person locally interested objects to'. the
gmnt ; if a.nd when Government has approved of
a draft license, either in its original form or in a
modified form, a duty is cast on Government to
inform the applicgnt of such approval and of tho
form in which it is proposed to grant the licens1i and
if the applirant is willing to accept the
licen.~e in the
.form proposed, then Government shall on reenipt of
an intimation in writing of such .qcceptance publish
the liconso and notify that it has been granted.
If, therefore, the provisions of the Electricity
Act arc read along with tho rules made thereunder,
it bocomes manifest that the condition as t.o the
option of purchase, either by the local authority or
Government, is the result of an agrel.'mcnt between
the applieant who has applied for the license and
Government who gr~nts the license. Section 7 of the
Electricity Aot is morcly an
enabling provision
which allows the parties t.o specify in the license
the periods on tho expiration of which the right of
option shall be cxcroiscd, su hjcct to the maximum
periods mentioned therein.
The true scope and
etfect of s. 7 is not what the appellant suggeeU!.
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
505
It merely provides for an option of purchase to be
I96Z
exercised. on
the expiration of certain periods Tho F..uks El
.
agreed to between the parties, and ~· 10 further - SupplJ co. Lff."'
provides that in an appropriate case· Government
~···c
v; .•
£
h
.
Th'
t'
d
,,,. omm1mooerol
may even orego t e opt10n.
IS sec 10n
oes
Inoom•'tax, Delhi
not provide for a compulsory purchase or compul-
--
sory acquisition without reference to and indepenDos J,
dent of any agreement by the licensee. Our attention has been drawn to the use of the expression
"compulsory purchase" in the. second proviso to
sub-s. (I) of s. 7 and it has been argued that the use
of that expression indicates the intention of the
Legislature. The se ·ond proviso is another enabling
provision which enables the parties to specify in
the license
such
percentage,.
if any,
not
exceeding
twenty
per
centum,
as
should
be
added
to
the . value of
the
building,
plant, machinery etc. when the option of purchase
is exercised. No doubt, the expression used in the
proviso is "compulsory purchase" ; but in substance
what it provides for is that the parties may agree
to increase the market value of the building, plant
etc. by a certain percentage when the option of
purchase is exercised and the price has to be paid.
The use of the expression "if any" after the word
"percentage" shows that the parties may agree not
to increase the market value at all. If the whole
scheme of the Electricity Act and the rules made
thereuuder, is kept in miud, it becomes obvious
that notwithstanding
the use of the expression
"compulsory purcha>e" iu the
second proviso to
sub·s. (I) of s. 7, there is no compulsory purchase
or compulsory acquisition in· the sense in which
that exp\ession is ordinarily understood. The High
Court has rightly pointed out that the scheme of
the El~ctricity Act as indicated by the relevant
provisions thereof and the- rules made thereunder,
shows beyond any doubt that the option of purchase is the result of a mutual agreement between
1961
Tht F•u1k• Euctric
Suplf;i C1. Ltd. •
..
.
'The Co11U11is1ioner of
lncoMe·lox, D1/hi
DasJ.
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
tho parties,
the applicant for the license on
one hand and Government on the other. The High
Court rightly observed :
"The rules show that a draft license has
to be sent by an applicant for license containing definite and specific terms on which the
license is sought. This amounts to an offer.
The Government accepts it or rejects it. If
it modifies it in any way, then the applicant
or offerer must accept the modification. If
the Government accopts the .offer with or
without modification, then it grants a license.
In my view a license granted by the Govern -
ment in such circumstances amounts to a
contract between the parties."
On behalf of the appellant it ha~ been contended, somewhat faintly, that all the elements
necessary to constitute a contract are not present
here. We are unabl(! to agree.
There was an
undertaking on the part of the applicant for the
Iioense to sell the undertaking to the local authority or Government upon certain terms set out in the
license, and the time at which the option was to
be exercised and the price which was to be paicl
for the property were specified. There was consideration for the contract as the license was granted on thoso terms.
Therefore, all elements
necessary for a contract were present, and the
sale in pursuance thereof wn,s not a compulsory
purchase or acquisition.
(8cc Sakalar1una Nay11d1i
v. Chhinna Munusu•amy Nayafoi· t').)
We are, therefore, of the l>pinion that the
High Court correctly allJlwered the question referred
to it.
There was a. sale in the present case of tho
building, machinery and plant within the meaning
( \) ( 1928) L, R. 55 I.A. 243.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
507
of cl. (vii) of s. 10(2) of the Income-tax Act. In·
view of this conclusion it is unnecessary to deal
with a somewhat larger question which was canvassed before us on behalf of the respondent that
s. 10(2 )(vii) of the Income-tax Act is attracted
even to a compulsory sale. Nor do we consider it
necessary to examine the decisions bearing upon
the question whether a compulsory transfer to and
vesting of property in Government, constitute a sale
within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the
Indian or English Statute. It is sufficient to point
out
that Calcutt,a Electric
Supply Corporation
v. Commissioner of Income-wx,
West Bengal (')
related to a transaction by which Government
acquired the plant etc. and it was held that such
acquisition could not be regarded as a sale within
the meaning of s. 10(2)(vii) of"the Income-tax Act.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed ·
with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) [1951] 19 I.T.R. 406.
1962
The F<U:.ilka E/ec!tic
Supply Go. Lid,
v.
The Commissioner OJ
lncnme•ta*, Delli.i
--
DasJ