{"id":146136,"date":"1960-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960"},"modified":"2015-08-24T21:30:47","modified_gmt":"2015-08-24T16:00:47","slug":"r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960","title":{"rendered":"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 December, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 December, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1007, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 271<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nR. G. S. NAIDU AND CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ANDEXCESS PROFITS TAX, MADRAS(And\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/12\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1007\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 271\n\n\nACT:\nExcess\tProfits\t Tax-Excess  Profits,  unassessed  or  under\nassessed--Assessment,  if can be  reopened-Apportionment  of\nincome-Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (XV of 1940), s. 15,  r.\n9, Sch. 1.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder an agreement dated July 11, 1945, the appellants\twere\nappointed  managing  agents of the Coimbatore  Spinning\t and\nWeaving Co. Ltd., for 20 years, and certain remuneration was\nprovided  for  them  including 10%  commission\ton  the\t net\nprofits\t of the company due and payable\t yearly\t immediately\nafter\tthe  accounts  of  the\tcompany\t were\tclosed\t and\ncommissions  on\t purchases and capital\texpenditure  of\t the\ncompany.  Prior to October 1, 1944, the appellants were\t the\nmanaging  agents  of the Coimbatore Mills Agency  Ltd.,\t who\nwere  the  managing agents of the  Coimbatore  Spinning\t and\nWeaving\t Co.  Ltd.  The year of account\t of  the  appellants\nended  on  March 31, of the company on June 30, and  of\t the\nAgency\tCompany\t on September 30.  For the  assessment\tyear\n1945-46\t the appellants submitted a return of  their  income\nwhich included the stipulated remuneration and\tcommissions.\nThis  return  was accepted by the  Income-tax  Officer,\t and\nExcess\tProfits Tax liability for the chargeable  accounting\nperiod\tending March 31, 1945, was also worked out  on\tthat\nbasis.\t A return of income was submitted by the  appellants\nfor  the assessment year 1946-47 which\tincluded  commission\nfor the period 1-4-45 to 30-6-45 on purchases of cotton\t and\nstores and on capital expenditure.  The Tax Officer directed\nthat the commission on purchases and capital expenditure  be\ntaken into account\n272\nfor the year April 1, 1945, to March 31, 1946, and that\t the\nreceipts be computed accordingly.  The assessment for  1945-\n46 was then reopened under S. 34 of the Income-tax Act under\ns.  15\tof  the Excess Profits Tax Act and as  a  result  of\napportionment  made by the application of r. 9 of Sch. 1  of\nthe Excess Profits Tax Act, the liability of the  appellants\nfor Income-tax and Excess Profits 'fax was revised and fresh\nassessments  were  made.   The\torders\tof  assessment\twere\nconfirmed by the appellate authorities.\nHeld, that as in the instant case the chargeable  accounting\nperiod for the assessment of Excess Profits Tax and the year\nof  account of the company did not tally, by the  assessment\nof income made on the assumption that they did tally,  there\nhad  resulted  under assessment and it was open to  the\t Tax\nOfficer to take action under s. 15 of the Excess Profits Tax\nAct.   The  Excess  Profits Tax Officer\t acted\tproperly  in\napportioning under r. 9 of Sch. 1 the commission received by\nthe appellants.\nRule  9 of Sch. 1 of the Excess Profits Tax  Act is  enacted\nin general terms and it is applicable to all contracts which\nare intended to be operative for fixed periods.\t If, for the\nperformance of the entire contract, remuneration is  payable\nat certain rates the profits earned out of that remuneration\nmust  be apportioned in the manner prescribed by 19  if\t the\nperformance  of\t the contact extends beyond  the  accounting\nperiod.\nE.   D.\t Sassoon & Co., Ltd. v. The Commissioner of  Income-\ntax, Bombay City, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 313, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 181 to\t 184
\nof 1960.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals.  from the judgment and order dated March 16,  1955,
\nof the Madras High Court in Case Referred No. 43 of 1950.
\nA.   V.\t  Viswanatha  Sastri,  R.  Ganapathy  Iyer  and\t  G.
\nGopalakrishnan, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Hardayal Hardy and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
\n1960,  December 14.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSHAH,\tJ.-These  appeals  relate  to  Excess  Profits\t Tax
\nliability  of  the appellants in respect of  two  chargeable
\naccounting  periods April 1. 1944, to March 31.,  1945,\t and
\nApril 1, 1945, to March 31, 1946.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants were under an agreement dated July 11,  1945,
\nappointed  managing  agents for 20 years of  the  Coimbatore
\nSpinning and Weaving Co,
\n273<\/span>
\nLtd.-hereinafter  referred  to\tas the\tcompany.   Prior  to
\nOctober 1, 1944, the appellants were the Managing Agents  of
\nthe Coimbatore Mills Agency Ltd–hereinafter referred to  as
\nthe  Agency  Company  who were the Managing  Agents  of\t the
\ncompany.   The\tyear of account of the appellants  ended  on
\nMarch  31,  of\tthe company on June 30, and  of\t the  Agency
\nCompany\t on September 30.  Under the agreement by which\t the
\nappellants  were appointed ‘managing agents,  the  following
\nremuneration was provided:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Office allowance at Rs. 1,500 per mensem;\n<\/p>\n
2.   Commission at 1% on all purchases of cotton and  stores
\nand  21\/2 on all capital expenditure incurred from  time  to
\ntime; and\n<\/p>\n
3.   Commission at 10% on the net profits of the company due
\nand  payable  yearly immediately after the accounts  of\t the
\ncompany were closed.\n<\/p>\n
For the assessment year 1945-46, the appellants submitted  a
\nreturn of their income inclusive of the following items:<\/p>\n
1.   Remuneration from the Agency
\nCompany\t\t\t\t       Rs. 36,000.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Commission\t at 10% on profits from the  Agency  Company
\nupto 30-9-1944 Rs. 37,953.<\/p>\n
3.   Remuneration from company from
\n1-10-1944 to 31-3-1945\t\t       Rs. 9,000.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Commission at 1% on cotton and stores purchased  during
\nthis period Rs. 21,704.\n<\/p>\n
This  return  was  accepted  by\t the  Additional  Income-tax
\nOfficer, Coimbatore I & II Circles, and the appellants\twere
\nassessed to income-tax.\t Excess Profits Tax was also  worked
\nout  on the same basis for the chargeable accounting  period
\nending March 31, 1945.\tFor the assessment year 1946-47, the
\nappellants submitted a return of their income which included
\nthe following items:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Remuneration from the company
\nfor one year from 1-4-1945\t Rs. 18,000.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Commission at 10% on the profits
\nof the company paid in December
\n1945 (1-10-1944 to 30-6-1945)\t    Rs. 1,90,889.<\/p>\n
35<\/span>
\n274<\/span><\/p>\n
3.   Commission at 1% on purchases
\nof cotton and stores from
\n1-4-1945 to 30-6-1945\t\t       Rs.     16,777.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Commission at 2 12\/ %on capital
\nexpenditure from 1-10-1944 to
\n30-6-1945\t\t\t      Rs.\t1,690.\n<\/p>\n
The  Tax Officer in charge of the assessment  directed\tthat
\nthe commission on purchases and capital expenditure be taken
\ninto account for the year April 1, 1945, to March 31,  1946,
\nand  that the receipts-be computed accordingly.\t The  amount
\nof  Rs.\t 1,127 attributable out of item\t 4  was\t accordingly
\ntaken into the account of the previous year after  reopening
\nthe  assessment under s. 34 of the Income-tax Act,  and\t the
\ncommission  on\tthe profits of the company  was\t apportioned
\nbetween\t the period October 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945,\t and
\nApril 1, 1945, to June 30, 1945, by the application of r.  9
\nof  Sch. 1 of the Excess Profits Tax Act.  The\tTax  Officer
\nalso  determined the proportionate commission payable  under
\nitems 3 and 4, for the period ending March 31, 1946, and  as
\na  result of the apportionment, the liability of the  appel-
\nlants,\toriginal  and  revised, for income  tax\t and  Excess
\nProfits\t Tax for the assessment year 1945-46 and  chargeable
\naccounting period April 1, 1944, to March    31, 1945, stood
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
Original assessment of income taxRs. 1,04,654.\n<\/p>\n
Excess Profits TaxRs.\t\t       45,292.\nRevised figures\nIncome-tax (loss)  Rs. 36,182.\n<\/pre>\n
Excess Profits TaxRs. 1,41,962-11-0.\n<\/p>\n
For  the assessment year 1946-47 and  chargeable  accounting
\nperiod\tApril 1, 1945, to March 31, 1946, tax liability\t was
\ncomputed at:\n<\/p>\n
Income-tax Rs. 1,66,271.\n<\/p>\n
Excess Profits Tax Rs. 1,13,163-5-0.\n<\/p>\n
The orders of assessmentfor  income tax and Excess  Profits
\nTax  were confirmed by the Appellate Assistant\tCommissioner
\nand the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.\tOn the\tapplications
\nof the appellants
\n275<\/span>
\nfor reference under s. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act and s. 21
\nof  the\t Excess\t Profits Tax Act, the  Tribunal\t drew  up  a
\nstatement  of  the  case and submitted\tthe  following\tfour
\nquestions to the High Court of Judicature at Madras:\n<\/p>\n
1.Whether  on the facts and in the circumstances  of  the
\ncase, the Income-tax Officer\/Excess Profits Tax Officer\t was
\nright in taking action under s. 34 and 15 of the  Income-tax
\nand the Excess Profits Tax Act ?\n<\/p>\n
2.Whether  on the facts and in the circumstances of  this
\ncase, the provisions of r. 9, s. 1, were properly applied ?\n<\/p>\n
3.Whether  on the facts and in the circumstances  of  the
\ncase, the Income-tax Officer\/Excess Profits Tax Officer\t was
\ncorrect in including the proportionate commission income  of
\nRs. 1,127 for income-tax assessment 1945-46 and Rs. 1,43,163
\nplus Rs. 1,127 for Excess Profits Tax assessment Tax for the
\nchargeable accounting period ending 31st March 1945, and\n<\/p>\n
4.Whether  on the facts and in the circumstances  of  the
\ncase,  the  proportionate commission of Rs. 37,129  and\t Rs.
\n2,299 were rightly assessed for the assessment year  1946-47
\n?\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court  answered all\tthe  questions\tagainst\t the
\nappellants  and\t in favour of the Department.\tAgainst\t the
\norder  passed  by the High Court, these\t appeals  have\tbeen
\npreferred  with certificate granted under s. 66A(2)  of\t the
\nIncome-Tax  Act\t read with s. 21 of the Excess\tProfits\t Tax
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Two questions were canvassed in these appeals:\n<\/p>\n
1.Whether  it was open to the Taxing Officer  to  re-open
\nthe assessment for 1945-46; and\n<\/p>\n
2.Whether  the commission received by the appellants  was
\nliable to be apportioned under r. 9 of Sch. 1 of the  Excess
\nProfits Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants\t maintained their books of account  on\tcash
\nbasis and commission received from the company was  credited
\nafter the accounts of the company were closed.\tThe  amounts
\nreceived by the appellants from the company were included in
\ntheir  return  and  assessment\tfor  the  year\t1945-46\t was
\ncompleted
\n276<\/span>
\nfor  the  purposes  of the Excess Profits  Tax\tby  the\t Tax
\nOfficer without apportionment appropriate to the  chargeable
\naccounting periods.  In so doing, the Tax Officer  committed
\nan  error.   He\t overlooked the\t fact  that  the  chargeable
\naccounting  period for the as  assessment of Excess  Profits
\nTax  and the year of account of the company did\t not  tally.
\nUnder  s.  15  of the Excess Profits Tax  Act,\tif  the\t Tax
\nOfficer\t discovers, in consequence of  definite\t information
\nwhich  has  come  into his possession that  profits  of\t any
\nchargeable  accounting period chargeable to  excess  profits
\ntax have escaped assessment, or have been under assessed, he
\nmay  serve  on the person liable to pay such  tax  a  notice
\ncontaining  all\t or  any of the requirements  which  may  be
\nincluded  in a notice under s. 13 and may proceed to  assess
\nor  reassess  the profits.  The provision  is  substantially
\nsimilar\t to  s. 34(1) of the Income-tax Act  before  it\t was
\namended\t in  the  year 1948.  It is  manifest  that  by\t the
\nassessment  of\tincome\tmade  on  the  assumption  that\t the
\nchargeable  accounting period and the accounting  period  of
\nthe company tallied, there resulted under assessment in\t the
\ncomputation of tax liability for Excess Profits Tax, and  it
\nwas  open to the Tax Officer to take action under s.  15  of
\nthe Excess Profits Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
Determination of the second question depends upon r. 9, Sob.
\n1, of the Excess Profits Tax Act.  By s. 2(19) of the Excess
\nProfits Tax Act, the expression ” profits ” means profits as
\ndetermined in accordance with Sch. 1. That schedule sets out
\nrules  for  computation of profits for the  purpose  of\t the
\nExcess\tProfits Tax Act; and by r. 9, it is provided  in  so
\nfar as it is material that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” Where the performance of a contract  extends
\n\t      beyond  the  accounting  period,\tthere  shall
\n\t      (unless the Excess Profits Tax Officer,  owing
\n\t      to   any\tspecial\t  circumstances,   otherwise
\n\t      directs)\tbe  attributed\tto  the\t  accounting
\n\t      period  such proportion of the entire  profits
\n\t      or  loss\twhich has resulted, or which  it  is
\n\t      estimated\t will  result,\tfrom  the   complete
\n\t      performance  of  the contract as\tis  properly
\n\t      attributable to the
\n\t      277<\/span>
\n\t      accounting period, having regard to the extent
\n\t      to which the contract was performed therein.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The performance of the contract of managing agency  extended
\nbeyond\tthe period of account of the company which was\tJuly
\n1,  1945,  to  June  30,  1946:\t it  covered  parts  of\t two
\naccounting  periods.  The Tax Officer was therefore  obliged
\nto  apportion  to  the, chargeable  accounting\tperiods\t the
\nentire\tprofits resulting from the complete  performance  of
\nthe  contract  in proportions properly attributable  to\t the
\naccounting  periods and this, he proceeded to  do.   Counsel
\nfor the appellants contends that the contracts\tcontemplated
\nby  r.\t9 are those of the nature of  engineering  or  works
\ncontracts  and\tthe  like where execution  of  the  contract
\ninvolves  a profit making operation de die in diem  and\t not
\ncontracts  where remuneration is payable at a  certain\ttime
\nfor services performed throughout the stipulated period.  It
\nis  true that remuneration was paid to the appellants  after
\nthe  expiry of the year of account of the company ; but\t the
\ncontract   was\tone  the  performance  of   which   extended
\nthroughout  the\t year  of  account  of\tthe  company.\t The
\nappellants were the managing agents of the company and\tthey
\nhad to perform their duties as managing agents for the whole
\nyear.  It is not disputed that the contract of agency for 20
\nyears is to be regarded for assessment of excess profits tax
\nas  an\tannual contract.  The performance  of  the  contract
\nunmistakably  cut  across  the\taccounting  period  is\talso
\nmanifest.  The remuneration for performance of the  contract
\nis  not\t computed  at a daily rate, but\t is  computed  on  a
\npercentage  of the commission on the profits of the  company
\nfor the whole year, but on that account, the contract is not
\none in which performance does not extend throughout the year
\nof account.  Normally in a managing agency contract,
\nthe  managing agent may not suffer loss, but that  does\t not
\nrule  out  the\tapplication  of\t r.  9\tto  managing  agency
\ncontracts.  The terms in which r. 9 is enacted are  general:
\nthe  rule is applicable to all contracts which are  intended
\nto be operative for a fixed period.  If, for the performance
\nof the entire contract,
\n278<\/span>
\nremuneration  is  payable at rates  stipulated,\t the  profit
\nearned\tout of that remuneration must be apportioned in\t the
\nmanner\tprovided by r. 9 if the performance of the  contract
\nextends beyond the accounting period
\nThe judgment of this Court in E. D. Sassoon & Co.,  Ltd.  v.
\nThe  Commissioner  of Income Tax, Bombay  City<\/a>(1)  on  which
\nstrong\treliance  was  placed  by  the\tappellants  has\t  no
\napplication to this case.  In that case, M\/s.  E. D. Sassoon
\n&  Co.,\t Ltd. who were managing agents\tof  three  different
\ncompanies  transferred the managing agencies to three  other
\ncompanies  on several dates during the accounting  year.   A
\nquestion  arose in the computation of income-tax payable  by
\nM\/s.  E. D. Sassoon & Co., Ltd. whether the managing  agency
\ncommission was liable to be apportioned between M\/s.  E.  D.
\nSassoon & Co., Ltd. and their respective transferees in\t the
\nproportion  of the services rendered as managing agents\t for
\nthe respective periods of the accounting year.\tIt was\theld
\nby this court (Jagannadhadas, J., dissenting) that on a true
\ninterpretation\tof  the managing agency agreements  in\teach
\ncase, the contract of service between the companies and\t the
\nmanaging   agents  was\tentire\tand  indivisible   and\t the
\nremuneration  or commission became due by the  companies  to
\nthe  managing agents only on completion of definite  periods
\nof  service and at stated intervals ; that complete  perfor-
\nmance was a condition precedent to the recovery of wages  or
\nsalary\tin  respect  thereof and  the  remuneration  payable
\nconstituted a debt only at the end of each period of service
\ncompletely  performed, no remuneration or  commission  being
\npayable\t to the managing agents for broken periods; that  no
\nincome\twas  earned by or accrued to M\/s.  E. D.  Sassoon  &
\nCo.,  Ltd.  and\t as the transfer of  the  agencies  did\t not
\ninclude\t any  income  which E. D. Sassoon &  Co.,  Ltd.\t had
\nearned,\t they were not liable to be taxed under the  Income-
\nTax Act.  But that was a case dealing with liability of\t the
\nassessees  who\tdid not receive any income and\tto  whom  no
\nincome had accrued to pay
\n(1)[1955] 1 S.C. R. 313.\n<\/p>\n
270<\/span><\/p>\n
income\ttax  on the amounts of remuneration  paid  to  their
\ntransferees.   The  court was not called upon  to  apply  to
\nincome\t received   by\tthe  assessee\tthe   principle\t  of
\napportionment  under r. 9 of Sch.  1 of the  Excess  Profits
\nTax  Act, or any provision similar thereto.  It is r.  9  of
\nSch.  I which attracts the principle of apportionment.\t The
\nrule  enunciated in M\/s, E. D. Sassoon & Co.’s case (1)\t has
\ntherefore  no application to this case, and the\t High  Court
\nwas right in holding that the assessment made by the  Excess
\nProfits\t Tax  Officer  by apportionment\t of  the  commission
\nincome\t between  the  chargeable  accounting  periods\t was
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeals  therefore fail and are dismissed\twith  costs.
\nOne hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    __________________<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 December, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1007, 1961 SCR (3) 271 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: R. G. S. NAIDU AND CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ANDEXCESS PROFITS TAX, MADRAS(And DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/12\/1960 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nR. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 14 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 14 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1960-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-24T16:00:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 December, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-24T16:00:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2126,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960\",\"name\":\"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 14 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-24T16:00:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 December, 1960\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 14 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 14 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-24T16:00:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 December, 1960","datePublished":"1960-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-24T16:00:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960"},"wordCount":2126,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960","name":"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 14 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-24T16:00:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-g-s-naidu-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-december-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. G. S. Naidu And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 14 December, 1960"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146136","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146136"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146136\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}