{"id":157637,"date":"1964-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964"},"modified":"2018-10-01T04:37:56","modified_gmt":"2018-09-30T23:07:56","slug":"kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964","title":{"rendered":"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 1 December, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 1 December, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1411, \t\t 1965 SCR (2) 310<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKYLASA SARABHIAH, BOMBAY CLOTH SHOP,SECUNDERABAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n01\/12\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1411\t\t  1965 SCR  (2) 310\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1967 SC 448\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\tTax  Act,  1922\t (11  of  1922),  s.  26-A,  r.\t  2-\nRegistration  of  firm -Partnership consisting of  firm\t and\nother persons-Income Tax Officer, powers-\"Specify\",  meaning\nof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant firm applied for registration under s. 26-A of\nthe  Indian Income-tax Act.  In the application the  persons\nrecited\t as partners were a Yam shop-another firm  and\tfour\nother persons and the collective share of the Yarn shop\t and\nthe shares of the other partners were set out.\tThe  Income-\ntax  Officer  rejected\tthe application and  his  order\t was\nconfirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant\tCommissioner\nand by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.  The Tribunal held\nthat  because in the deed of partnership benefits  to  which\ncertain\t minors\t were admitted and  particulars\t \"about\t the\ndistribution of profits or losses in the manner in which the\nfirm wanted the same to be distributed\" were not  specified,\nand  because  by the deed of partnership the yarn  shop\t was\nintroduced  as\ta  partner in the  firm,  the  privilege  of\nregistration  under s. 26A must be denied to the firm.\t The\nquestion was referred to the High Court, which too  answered\nsimilarly.  In appeal by special leave,\nHELD:\t  The appeal must be allowed.\n(i)  If the statutory conditions which qualify the firm\t for\nregistration  are fulfilled, an arrangement between some  of\nthe  partners,\twhich binds them to distribute\tthe  profits\nunder  a stipulation which is not a part of the\t partnership\nagreement does not effect the right to claim registration of\nthe partnership agreement. [314 H]\nDulichand   Laxminarayan  v.  Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,\nNagpur,<\/a> [1956] S.C.R. 154, distinguished.\n(ii) The  word\t\"specify\" is used in s. 26A and\t Rule  2  as\nmeaning\t mentioning,  describing or defining in\t detail;  it\ndoes  not mean expressly setting out in fractional or  other\nshares. [314 D-E]\n(iii)\t  If  the conditions for registration of a firm\t are\nfulfilled, the Income-tax Officer has no power to reject the\napplication.  Undoubtedly, the application must strictly  be\nin  conformity\twith  the  Act and  the\t Rules,\t but  in  so\nascertaining,  the  dead of partnership must  be  reasonably\nconstrued. [311 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1964.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust\t18, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in  R.  C.
\nAppeal No. 34 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
A.   Ranganadham Chetty, K. Venkaramaiah, A. Vedavalli and
\nA. V. Rangam, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
311<\/span><\/p>\n
R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah, J. The appellants who are a firm carrying on  business
\nin  cloth  at  Secunderabad applied on June  30,  1955,\t for
\nregistration  under  s. 26-A of the Indian  Income-tax\tAct,
\n1922,  for  the\t assessment  year  1956-57.   The  following
\npersons\t were, it was recited in the application,  partners,
\nhaving\tshare  in  the profits and  lossess  in\t proportions
\nspecified against their names :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1 .   M\/s\t Kylasa Sarabhiah a firm  consisting
\n\t      of the following partners :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   Kylasa Veeresalingam.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Kylasa Nagendrarao
\n\t      Rs.  As.\tPs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) Kylasa Madhusudhanarao 069\n<\/p>\n
     2. Mahendrakar Narayanarao 033\n<\/p>\n
     3. Nune Vittayya  026\n<\/p>\n
     4. Pottupalli Chandrayya 026\n<\/p>\n
     5. Gande Ramayya 010
\nFor  facility  of  reference we will call No.  1  ‘the\tYarn
\nShop’.\n<\/p>\n
The  Income-tax\t Officer rejected the application,  and\t his
\norder  was  confirmed in appeal by the\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.\t The
\nTribunal  held\tthat  because in  the  deed  of\t partnership
\nbenefits   to  which  certain  minors  were  admitted,\t and
\nparticulars “about the distribution of profits or losses  in
\nthe  manner  in\t which\tthe  firm  wanted  the\tsame  to  be
\ndistributed” were not specified, and because by the deed  of
\npartnership the Yarn Shop was introduced as a partner in the
\nfarm,  the privilege of registration under s. 26-A  must  be
\ndenied\tto  the\t firm.\tThe High  Court\t of  Andhra  Pradesh
\nrecorded  on the following question referred under s.  66(1)
\nof the Income-tax Act
\n“Whether  on  the facts and circumstances of the  case,\t the
\nassessee  is entitled to registration under s. 26-A  of\t the
\nIncometax Act ?”,
\na negative answer.\n<\/p>\n
Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides
\n\t      “(1) Application may be made to the Income-tax
\n\t      Officer  on  behalf of any  firm,\t constituted
\n\t      under an instrument of partnership, specifying
\n\t      the  individual  shares of the  partners,\t for
\n\t      registration for the purpose of this Act
\nSup.165–4
\n312<\/span>
\nand  of\t any  other enactment for the time  being  in  force
\nrelating to income-tax or super-tax.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)The  application shall be made\t by  such
\n\t      person or persons and at such times and  shall
\n\t      contain such particulars and shall be in\tsuch
\n\t      form,  and be verified in such manner, as\t may
\n\t      be  prescribed; and it shall be dealt with  by
\n\t      the  Income-tax Officer in such manner as\t may
\n\t      be prescribed.”\n<\/p>\n
By securing registration under the Act, the partners of\t the
\nfirm  obtain a benefit of lower rates of assessment  and  no
\ntax is directly charged on the income of the firm.  This  is
\nan  important benefit to which the partners of a  registered
\nfirm  become entitled as a consequence of registration,\t and
\nif it is intended to secure that benefit, requirements of s.
\n26-A  and  the rules framed under the Act must\tbe  strictly
\ncomplied with.\tRule 2 framed under s. 59 requires that\t the
\napplication  shall  be\tsigned by the  partners\t (not  being
\nminors)\t personally, and prescribes the period within  which
\nthe  application  shall be made for the\t year  in  question.
\nRule  3 provides that the application shall be made  in\t the
\nprescribed  form  and shall be accompanied by  the  original
\ninstrument   of\t  partnership  under  which  the   firm\t  is
\nconstituted.  By Rule 4 it is provided that if on receipt of
\nthe  application, the Income-tax Officer is  satisfied\tthat
\nthere is or was a firm in existence constituted as shown  in
\nthe instrument of partnership, and that the application\t has
\nbeen properly made, he shall enter in writing at the foot of
\nthe  instrument\t or certified copy, as the case\t may  be,  a
\ncertificate  in\t the  prescribed form.\tBy  Rule  6  of\t the
\ncertificate  of registration may be renewed  for  subsequent
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
Registration  of the firm may be obtained on an\t application
\nto the Income-tax Officer on behalf of any firm, if the firm
\nbe  lawfully constituted under an instrument of\t partnership
\nwhich  specifies the individual shares of partners  and\t the
\nIncome-tax  Officer  is\t satisfied that there is  or  was  a
\ngenuine\t firm in existence as shown in the  instrument.\t  If
\nthe conditions are fulfilled, the income-tax Officer has  no
\npower\tto   reject  the  application.\t  Undoubtedly,\t the
\napplication must strictly be in conformity with the Act\t and
\nthe Rules, but in ascertaining whether the application is in
\nconformity  with the Rules, the deed of partnership must  be
\nreasonably construed.\n<\/p>\n
Under  the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 partnership  is\t the
\nrelation  between  persons  who have  agreed  to  share\t the
\nprofits\t of  a\tbusiness carried on by all or  any  of\tthem
\nacting for all.\t A firm
\n\t\t\t    313<\/span>
\nis strictly not a person : it is an association of  persons,
\nand  an agreement by which a firm purports to enter  into  a
\npartnership with an individual or another firm merely  makes
\nthe  partners  of  that firm individually  partners  of\t the
\nlarger partnership. The problem posed by such a\t partnership
\nagreement  is under the general law academic, but the  right
\nto   registration  under  s.  26A  being  conditional\tupon
\nspecification  of the individual shares of the\tpartners,  a
\ndeed of partnership between a firm and an individual,  which
\nspecifies  the collective share of the firm,  without  more,
\ncannot\tbe  registered.\t It has been held by this  Court  in
\nDulichand   Laxminarayan  v.  Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,
\nNagpur<\/a>(1)   that  a  partnership  constituted\tbetween\t  an
\nindividual,  a joint Hindu family and three firms could\t not
\nbe  registered\tunder  s. 26-A of the  Act.  In\t Dulichand’s
\ncase(1) the partnership deed was signed by five individuals,
\nviz., the karta of the joint Hindu family, one partner\teach
\nof the three firms and the individual.\tIt was held that the
\npartnership could not be admitted to registration, because a
\nfirm as such cannot enter into an agreement as partner\twith
\nanother firm or individual, and also because all the members
\nof the three firms had not personally signed the application
\nas required by Rule 2 of the Income-tax Rules.
\nThe  application  in the present case was  rejected  by\t the
\nTribunal,  because  in its view the benefits  to  which\t the
\nminors\twere admitted and the shares of the  major  partners
\nwho  were members of the Yarn Shop were not  specified,\t and
\nthat  the Yam Shop was introduced as a partner in the  firm.
\nBut the Tribunal, in our judgment, erred in holding that the
\nbenefits to which the minors were admitted and the shares of
\nthe major members of the Yarn Shop were not specified in the
\ndeed of partnership.  It is clearly recited in the  preamble
\nthat  K. Rajeshwarrao, K. Haranath Babu, K. Ramesh Babu\t and
\nK.  Shivakumar-the four minors-were admitted to the  benefit
\nof the partnership with equal shares in the profits  falling
\nto  the share of the Yam Shop, and losses were to be  shared
\nin equal shares only by the major partners K. Veeresalingam,
\nK.  Nagendrarao and K. Madhusudhanarao.\t The scheme  of\t the
\ndeed  therefore\t was that the Yam Shop\tcollectively  had  a
\nshare  of  0-6-9 in the profits and was liable in  the\tsame
\nproportion in the losses in the appellant firm.\t Out of this
\n0-6-9 share, seven persons who constituted the Yam Shop were
\nentitled  to share the profits_equally, whereas losses\twere
\nto  be\tshared by the three major members of  the  Yam\tShop
\nequally.   It is true that in the deed of  partnership,\t the
\nfirst partner is described as “Kylasa
\n(1)[1956] S.C.R. 154.\n<\/p>\n
314<\/span><\/p>\n
Sarabhiah  Yam\tfirm”-the  Yam\tShop-constituted  under\t  an
\ninstrument  of\tpartnership  dated  May\t 12,  1955,  and  in
\nparagraphs  3 and 8 this Yam Shop is also described  as\t the
\nfirst partner.\tBut the substance of the agreement cannot be
\npermitted  to  be  overshadowed merely by  the\tuse  of\t the
\ncollective description of some of the persons who agreed  to
\nbe partners.  The agreement was between K. Veeresalingam, K.
\nNagendrarao,  K. Madhusudhanarao, Mahendrakar Narayana\tRao,
\nNoone  Vittayya, Pottipalli Chandrayya and Gande Ramayya  to
\nenter  into partnership with the covenant that\tthe  profits
\nand  losses shall be divided in the shares specified in\t the
\ninstrument.   The  partnership agreement was signed  by\t the
\nmajor  partners;  the application for  registration  was  in
\nconformity  with  the  rules  framed  under  the  Act,\t the
\ncertificate regarding the distribution of the profits in the
\nprevious   year\t was  given,  the  original  instrument\t  of
\npartnership  was produced and the instrument  specified\t the
\nindividual shares of the partners.  Merely because the\tdeed
\nof  partnership set out in paragraph 8 the collective  share
\nof the Yarn Shop, registration could not be refused, for  in
\nthe  preamble  the  division of the shares  of\tprofits\t and
\nlosses\tamong  the three members of the Yam Shop  and  those
\nadmitted  to  the  benefit of  the  partnership\t is  clearly
\nindicated.  The word “specify” is used in s. 26-A and Rule 2
\nas  meaning, mentioning, describing or defining in detail  :
\nit  does  not mean expressly setting out  in  fractional  or
\nother  shares.\tIn the deed of partnership, the\t shares\t are
\nclearly\t defined, though they are not worked out in  precise
\nfractions.   Nor  is  it true to say that the  Yam  Shop  is
\nintroduced as a partner.  The agreement is in truth  between
\nthree  major  members out of those who constitute  the\tYarn
\nShop  and  four\t outsiders.  Each of  them  has\t signed\t the
\napplication  and the covenants of the partnership  agreement
\nbind  the partners individually.  Indication in the deed  of
\npartnership  that  three  of them held qua the\tYam  Shop  a
\ncertain relation did not affect their status as partners  of
\nthe appellant firm individually.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t urged\tthat in the deed dated\tFebruary  20,  1952,
\nconstituting the Yarn Shop, as amended by the deed dated May
\n12, 1955, no profit sharing ratio was mentioned.  But we are
\nnot  concerned with the registration of the Yarn  Shop.\t  We
\nare unable to appreciate how a defect (even if there be\t one
\nin  the\t agreement constituting the Yarn firm)\taffects\t the
\nright  of  the\tappellant firm to  be  registered.   If\t the
\nstatutory  conditions  which  qualify  the  appellants\t for
\nregistration  are fulfilled, an arrangement between some  of
\nthe   partners\tof  the\t appellants  which  binds  them\t  to
\ndistribute  the pro-fits under a stipulation which is not  a
\npart of the partnership agree-\n<\/p>\n
ment does not affect the right to claim registration of\t the
\npartner-ship agreement.\n<\/p>\n
The answer recorded by the High Court must therefore, be
\ndischarged, and an affirmative answer must be recorded.
\nThe  appeal is allowed.\t The appellants will be entitled  to
\ntheir costs in this Court and the High Court.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
316<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 1 December, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1411, 1965 SCR (2) 310 Author: S C. Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: KYLASA SARABHIAH, BOMBAY CLOTH SHOP,SECUNDERABAD Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH […]<\/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-157637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 December, 1964 - 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\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-30T23:07:56+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 1 December, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-30T23:07:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964\"},\"wordCount\":1785,\"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\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964\",\"name\":\"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-30T23:07:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 1 December, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 December, 1964 - 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\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-30T23:07:56+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 1 December, 1964","datePublished":"1964-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-30T23:07:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964"},"wordCount":1785,"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\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964","name":"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-30T23:07:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kylasa-sarabhiah-bombay-cloth-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-1-december-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kylasa Sarabhiah, Bombay Cloth … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 1 December, 1964"}]},{"@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\/157637","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=157637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}