{"id":163056,"date":"1965-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965"},"modified":"2015-09-15T00:21:39","modified_gmt":"2015-09-14T18:51:39","slug":"poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965","title":{"rendered":"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 April, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 April, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 30, \t\t 1965 SCR (3) 818<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPOONA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/04\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR   30\t\t  1965 SCR  (3) 818\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1967 SC 477\t (6)\n RF\t    1973 SC2486\t (8)\n R\t    1973 SC2766\t (9)\n R\t    1986 SC 368\t (16)\n MV\t    1986 SC 757\t (15)\n\n\nACT:\n  Income-tax  Act (11 of 1922) s. 10(1)--Profit\t arrived  at\nafter  deducting amounts according to  Electricity  (Supply)\nAct, 1948---Taxable income--If deductions can be allowed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant-company was a commercial\t undertaking,  doing\nthe  business  of  supply  of  electricity  subject  to\t the\nprovisions  of\tElectricity  (Supply)  Act,  1948.  For\t the\npurpose\t of rationalization of rates and keeping them  under\ncontrol, the licensee was directed by the Act to adjust\t the\nrates  in such a way that the clear profit in any  year\t did\nnot exceed the amount of reasonable return as defined in the\nAct;  but  that\t if an excess was  collected,  the  licensee\nshould\tdistribute half of that excess by way of  rebate  to\nthe   consumers,   or\tcarry  the  amount  forward  in\t the\naccounts for distribution to the consumers. For the purposes\nof  the\t Act,  during the  accounting  years,  the  assessee\ncredited  certain  amounts which formed part of\t the  excess\ncollected  to the \"Consumers Benefit Reserve  Account\",\t and\nclaimed deduction of those amounts from the taxable  income.\nThe   Income  Tax  Officer  and\t the   Appellate   Assistant\nCommissioner disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal  allowed\nthe deductions. The High Court, on a reference, held against\nthe assessee.\n In   it  appeal to this Court the appellant contended\tthat\nthere was a distinction between commercial accurancy,. As a'\nprofit\" under the Electricity (Supply) Act and that the real\nor  commercial profit under s. 10(1) of the Income Tax\tAct,\n1922,  could be determined only after excluding the  amounts\nstatutorily  transferred to the \"Consumers  Benefit  Reserve\nAccount\",  for,\t that  amount represented a  rebate  to\t the\nconsumers, of the excess amount: collected from them.\n    HELD:  As  a  business concern the real  profit  of\t the\nappellant  had\tto  be\tascertained  on\t the  principles  of\ncommercial  accountancy.  As  a\t licensee  governed  by\t the\nstatute\t its \"clear profit\" was ascertained in terms of\t the\nstatute\t and the schedule annexed thereto. The\ttwo  profits\nare  for  different  purposes-one  for\tcommercial  and\t tax\npurposes  and the other for statutory purposes in  order  to\nmaintain a reasonable level of rates. The amounts for  which\ndeduction was claimed were a part of the excess amount\tpaid\nto  the\t assessee  and\treserved  to  be  returned  to\t the\nconsumers.  They  did not form part of the  assessee's\treal\nprofits,  and therefore, to arrive at the taxable income  of\nthe  assessee  from  the business, under  s.  10(1)  of\t the\nIncome-tax Act the said amounts had to be deducted from\t its\ntotal  income. [827G-828A]\n    The income tax is a tax on the real income, that is\t the\nreal profits arrived at on commercial principles subject  to\nthe provisions of the Income-tax Act. The real profit can be\nascertained only by making the permissible deductions. There\nis  a  clear  cut distinction between  deductions  made\t for\nascertaining  the  profits  and distributions  made  out  of\nprofits.  It  is  a  question of fact to  be  found  on\t the\nrelevant   circumstances,   having   regard   to    business\nprinciples.  Another\n819\ndistinction that should be borne in mind is that between the\nreal  and  the\tstatutory  profits,  that  is  between\t the\ncommercial  profits  and statutory profits. The\t latter\t are\nstatutorily  fixed for a specified purpose. The real  profit\nof a businessman under s. 10(1) of the Incometax Act, cannot\n,obviously  include  the amounts returned by him by  way  of\nrebate\tto the consumers, under statutory  compulsion,\tfrom\nthe statutory profits. [822C, 827E, F]\nCase law referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 633 and
\n634 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeals  from the judgement and order dated July 23\t and
\n24,  1962 of the Bombay High Court in  Income-tax  Reference
\nNo. 61 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
    A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S.N. Vakil, T.A.  Ramachandran,\n<\/p>\n
1.  B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for\t the
\nappellant (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
    Niren  De,\tAdditional Solicitor-General,  R.  Ganapathy
\nlyer  and  R.N.\t Sachthey,  for\t respondent  (in  both\t the
\nappeals).\n<\/p>\n
    A.V.  Vishwanatha Sastri, M.N. Shroff and 1. N.  Shroff,
\nfor the Intervener (in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    Subba  Rao, J. The appellant, the Poona Electric  Supply
\nCo.,  Ltd., hereinafter called the Company, carried  on\t the
\nbusiness of distribution of electricity in the city of Poona
\nunder a licence issued by the Government. Under the relevant
\nprovisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, (Act 54 of
\n1948),\thereinafter  called the Act,  the  Company’s  “clear
\nprofit”\t in any year should not, as far as possible,  exceed
\nthe amount of “reasonable return” as defined under the\tAct.
\nThe  excess,  if  any, after  making  some  deductions,\t the
\nCompany\t has to distribute to its consumers in the  form  of
\nrebate.\t During the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 the
\nCompany claimed deduction of two amounts of Rs. 42,148\/- and
\nRs. 77,138\/- for the said two years from its taxable  income
\nas   they  were\t credited  to  “Consumers  Benefit   Reserve
\nAccount”.  The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim;\t and
\non  appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed\twith
\nthe Income-tax Officer. On a further appeal, the  Income-tax
\nAppellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the  appellant
\nand allowed the deductions.  At the instance of the Revenue,
\nthe Tribunal submitted the following question of law to\t the
\nHigh Court of Judicature at Bombay for its opinion:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “Whether  the two sums of Rs. 42,1481-  in
\n\t      the  assessment year 1953-54 and Rs.  77,138\/-
\n\t      in the assessment year 1954-55 were deductible
\n\t      in  computing income, profits and\t gains
\n\t      from  the assessee’s business   assessable  to
\n\t      tax.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
820<\/span><\/p>\n
A  Division  Bench  of\tthe said  High\tCourt  answered\t the
\nquestion  in  the negative and against the  appellant.\t The
\npresent\t appeals  have\tbeen  filed  by\t the  Company  after
\nobtaining the requisite certificate from the High Court.
\n    The\t argument  of Mr. A.V.\tViswanatha  Sastri,  learned
\ncounsel for the appellant, may be summarised thus: (1) There
\nis a distinction between commercial profit of a company\t and
\n“clear\tprofit”\t under\tthe  Act—one\tis  arrived  at\t  on
\ncommercial  principles\tand the other is  regulated  by\t the
\nstatute; the real profit of a company under s. 10(1) of\t the
\nIndian Income-tax Act can be determined only after excluding
\nthe amount statutorily transferred to the “Consumers Benefit
\nReserve Account”, for that amount represents a rebate to the
\ncustomers of the excess amount collected from them.  (2)  As
\nthe reservation of a part of the said excess is a  statutory
\ncondition  subject  to\twhich the  Company  carries  on\t its
\nbusiness,  it  is  an  expenditure  wholly  and\t exclusively
\nincurred  for  the purpose of the Company’s   business\tand,
\ntherefore, it is an allowance deductible under s.  10(2)(xv)
\nof  the\t Income-tax  Act for computing\tthe  profit  of\t the
\nAppellant’s business. (3) The Company follows the mercantile
\nsystem of accounting and, therefore, the amount of rebate so
\nreserved is deductible for arriving at the commercial profit
\nof  the\t Company in the year when  the\tstatutory  liability
\narises and not when the amount is actually paid; and in\t the
\npresent\t case  the  statutory liability\t for  the  said\t two
\namounts arose in the accounting years of 1952 and 1953.
\n    Learned Additional Solicitor General contended that\t (1)
\nunder the relevant provisions of the Act the transference of
\na  part of the said excess to the consumers benefit  reserve
\naccount\t would only amount to apportionment or\tdistribution
\nof the profit after it has been earned and, therefore, it is
\nnot  a\tdeductible item for ascertaining the profit  of\t the
\nCompany\t under s. 10(1) of the Income-tax Act; (2) the\tsaid
\namounts\t could not be said to be an expenditure\t wholly\t and
\nexclusively incurred for the purpose of the business, as the
\nexpenditure was not incurred either during the course of the
\nbusiness  or for the purpose of earning the profits  of\t the
\nbusiness,  but was only apportioned or distributed from\t and
\nout of the profits already earned.\n<\/p>\n
    To\tappreciate the rival contentions and to arrive at  a
\nsatisfactory  solution\tit will be necessary to\t notice\t the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act and of the Income-tax Act.
\n    The gist of the relevant provisions may be stated  thus:
\nNo  person can supply electric energy in any area unless  he
\nhas  obtained a licence from the State Government  under  s.
\n3(1)  of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910).\t The
\nAct, i.e., The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, provides\t for
\nthe   rationalization  of  the\tproduction  and\t supply\t  of
\nelectricity and generally for taking
\n821<\/span>
\nmeasures  conducive  to electrical development. One  of\t its
\nmain  objects  is to prevent such  licensees  from  charging
\nunreasonable rates to the detriment of the consumers.  Under
\ns. 57(1) of the Act the provisions of the Sixth Schedule and
\nthe  table  appended  to the Seventh  Schedule\tthereto\t are
\ndeemed to be incorporated in the licence of every  licensee.
\nParagraph  I of the Sixth Schedule imposes a duty  on  every
\nsuch  licensee\tto  so\tadjust his rates  for  the  sale  of
\nelectricity by periodical revision that his clear profit  in
\nany  year shall not, as far as possible,  exceed the  amount
\nof  “reasonable return”.    The expressions  “clear  profit”
\nand “reasonable return” are defined.  Under Para. II thereof
\nif  the clear profit of a licence in any year of account  is
\nin  excess of the amount of reasonable return, one-third  of
\nsuch  excess,  not  exceeding  7  1\/2%\tof  the\t amount\t  of
\nreasonable   return,  shall  be\t at  the  disposal  of\t the
\nundertaking;  one  half of the said excess shall  either  be
\ndistributed  in\t the form of a proportional  rebate  on\t the
\namounts\t collected  from the sale of electricity  and  meter
\nrentals\t or carried forward in the accounts of the  licensee
\nfor  distribution to the consumers in future in such  manner
\nas the State Government may direct.  It is, therefore, clear
\nfrom   these\tprovisions   that   for\t  the\tpurpose\t  of
\nrationalization of rates and keeping them under control\t the
\nlicence\t is directed to adjust his rates in such a way\tthat
\nhis clear profit in any year shall not, as far as  possible,
\nexceed the amount of reasonable profit; but if an excess  is
\ncollected, the licensee shall distribute half of that excess
\nin  the\t form of a proportional rebate to the  consumers  or
\ncarry\tforward\t the  same  in\this  accounts\tfor   future
\ndistribution  to the consumers.\t Briefly stated, the  scheme
\nof the provisions is that a part of the excess collected  is
\nreturned to the consumers by way of a rebate.  The  question
\nis  whether  the  amount so returned or\t returnable  by\t the
\nlicensee to his consumers is deductible for ascertaining his
\ntaxable\t income\t from  his business under  s.  10(1)  or  s.
\n10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned Additional Solicitor General took us though\t the
\nvarious\t paragraphs  of the Sixth Schedule to  the  Act\t and
\nargued\tthat  under  them the licensee’s  clear\t profit\t was
\narrived at after all the deductions were made, including the
\nappropriations\tfor  all taxes on income  and  profits\tand,
\ntherefore, the distribution of a part of the excess was only
\na distribution out of the profits. There is plausibility  in
\nthis  argument\tand  at the first blush\t it  appears  to  be
\nattractive.  But there is an obvious fallacy underlying\t the
\nargument  and  that arises from the fact that  the  argument
\nequates\t  the  expression  “clear  profit”  with   that\t  of
\ncommercial  profits.  The object of the Act and that of\t the
\nSixth  Schedule\t thereto, as aforesaid,\t is  to\t statutorily
\nrationalize and regulate the rates chargeable for the energy
\nsupplied  in the interest of the public and  for  electrical
\ndevelopment.   The rules embodied in the Sixth\tSchedule  to
\nthe Act are intended only to achieve that object.  Under the
\nsaid  rules  certain appropriations and\t certain  deductions
\nhave  to be made to. arrive at the clear  profit;  otherwise
\nthe items may be manipulated
\n822<\/span>
\nto  sustain a demand for abnormal rates.  The rules have  no
\nconcern with income-tax; though for the purpose of  arriving
\nat the clear profit the taxes paid are also deductible.\t  If
\nthis distinction is borne in mind, the problem presented  is
\neasily and readily solved.\n<\/p>\n
Under s. 10 (1) of the Income-tax Act, tax shall be  payable
\nby  an\tassessee  under\t the  head  “profits  and  gains  of
\nbusiness”  in respect of profits and gains of  any  business
\ncarried\t on  by\t him.  The said profits and  gains  are\t not
\nprofits regulated by any statute, but profits in a  business
\ncomputed on business principles.  They are business  profits
\nand  not statutory profits.  They are real profits  and\t not
\nnotional profits.  The real profit of a businessman under s.
\n10(1)of\t the  Income-tax Act cannot  obviously\tinclude\t the
\namounts\t returned by him by way of rebate to  the  consumers
\nunder  statutory compulsion.  It is as if he  received\tonly
\nfrom the consumers the original amount\tminus the  amount he
\nreturned  to  them.   In  substance  there  cannot  be\t any
\ndifference   between  a\t businessman  collecting  from\t his
\nconstituents a sum of Rs. Y in addition to Rs. X by  mistake
\nand  returning\tRs.  Y\tto  them  and  another\t businessman
\ncollecting  Rs. X alone.  The amount returned is not a\tpart
\nof the profits at all.\n<\/p>\n
In  this context some of the decisions cited at the Bar\t may
\nbe  of\tsome  help.  In Pondicherry  Railway  Co.,  Ltd.  v.
\nCommissioner  of Income-tax, Madras(1). under  an  agreement
\nwith the French Colonial Government the railway company\t had
\nto  pay\t to  the said Government half  of  its\tnet  profits
\ncalculated  as\tprovided thereunder.  One of  the  questions
\nthat  arose in the appeal was whether the  appellant-company
\nwas entitled to deduct the payments made under the agreement
\nwith  the  said\t Government as\tbeing  expenditure  incurred
\nsolely\tfor  the purpose of earning such profits  within  s.
\n10(9) of the Income-tax Act.  In dealing with the  question,
\nLord Macmillan observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “A payment out of profits and\t conditional
\n\t      on  profits being earned cannot accurately  be
\n\t      described\t as a payment made to earn  profits.
\n\t      It  assumes that profits have first come\tinto
\n\t      existence.   But profits on their coming\tinto
\n\t      existence\t attract tax at that point, and\t the
\n\t      revenue  is not concerned with the  subsequent
\n\t      application of the profits.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  learned Lord, after citing with  approval
\n\t      the  principle  laid down by  Lord  Chancellor
\n\t      Halsbury in Gresham Life Assurance .Society v.
\n\t      Styles(2), proceeded to observe:
\n\t\t  “The\tword  ‘profits’\t I think  is  to  be
\n\t      understood in its natural and proper  sense…
\n\t      in  a  sense  which no  commercial  man  would
\n\t      misunderstand.  But once an individual or
\n\t\t (1) [1931] L.R. 58 A.C. 239, 251-252, 252.
\n\t       (2) [1892] A.C. 309.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      823<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      a company has in that proper sense ascertained
\n\t      what  are the profits of his business  or\t his
\n\t      trade, the destination of those profits or the
\n\t      charge which has been made on those profits by
\n\t      previous\tagreement or otherwise is  perfectly
\n\t      immaterial.   The\t tax  is  payable  upon\t the
\n\t      profits  realized, and the meaning to my\tmind
\n\t      is rendered plain by the words ‘payable out of
\n\t      profits.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The distinction between payment out of profits and a payment
\nto  earn  profits is unexceptionable. The difficulty  is  to
\nascertain  in each case whether a particular  payment  falls
\nunder  one or other of the two categories. The statement  in
\nthe  aforesaid\tobservations that a payment  conditional  on
\nprofits\t being\tearned\tcannot be a  payment  made  to\tearn
\nprofits has been modified and explained by the Privy Council
\nin The Indian Radio and Cable Communications Cornpony, Ltd.,
\nv.  The\t Commissioner of Income-tax,   Bombay  Presidency  &
\nAdenC). There, the<\/a>ir Lordships were dealing with a case of a
\njoint  venture by two  companies; and Lord  Maugham  pointed
\nout thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“It  may be admitted that,  as\tMr.   Latter
\n\t      contended,  it is not universally true to\t say
\n\t      that   a\tpayment\t the  making  of  which\t  is
\n\t      conditional  on  profits being  earned  cannot
\n\t      properly\t be  described\tas  an\t expenditure
\n\t      incurred\tfor  the  purpose  of  earning\tsuch
\n\t      profits.\t The typical exception is that of  a
\n\t      payment  to  a  director or  a  manager  of  a
\n\t      commission on the profits of a company.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To that extent the principle laid down by Lord Macmillan  in
\nthe   case  of\t Pondicherry   Railway\t Co.(2)\t  has\tbeen
\nmodified. Lord Macmillan himself in a later decision in\t The
\nUnion Cold Storage Co. Ltd., v. Adamson (H. M. Inspector  of
\nTaxes)<\/a>(3)  explained  his observations\tin  the\t Pondicherry
\nRailway Co.’s case (2). There, the appellant-company  leased
\nlands  and  premises   abroad\tunder  a  deed\treserving  a
\nparticular rent per annum.  The deed provided that if at the
\nend of any financial year it was found that after  providing
\nfor  this  rent the result of the Company’s  operations\t was
\ninsufficient  to  pay  both  interest  on  its\tcharges\t and
\ndebentures  and dividends at fixed rates on  its  preference
\nshares\tand  also  at least 10 per  cent,  on  its  ordinary
\nshares, the rent for the year was to be abated to the extent
\nof the deficiency, repayment of rent already paid being made
\nif necessary.  The question raised in that case was  whether
\nsuch  repayments  made\twere  allowable\t as  deductions\t  in
\nassessing the Company’s income to income-tax.  The House  of
\nLords  held that they were allowable deductions.   When\t the
\nobservations  of Lord Macmillan in the\tPondicherry  Railway
\nCo.’s case(2) were pressed upon the House in support of\t the
\ncontention
\n  (1) (1937) 5 I.T.R. 270, 277.\t   (2) L.R. 58 A.C. 239.
\n  (3) (1931) 16 A.C. 328, 331.\n<\/p>\n
824<\/span><\/p>\n
on  behalf  of\tthe Revenue, Lord  Macmillan  explained\t his
\nearlier observations thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “When, therefore, in the passage  referred
\n\t      to by the Attorney-General in the\t Pondicherry
\n\t      case I said that “a payment out of profits and
\n\t      conditional  on  profits being  earned  cannot
\n\t      accurately  be described as a payment made  to
\n\t      earn  profits”, I was dealing with a  case  in
\n\t      which  the  obligation was, first of  all,  to
\n\t      ascertain the profits in a prescribed  manner,
\n\t      after  providing for all outlays\tincurred  in
\n\t      earning  them, and then to divide them.\tHere
\n\t      the question is whether or not a deduction for
\n\t      rent  has\t to  be\t made  in  ascertaining\t the
\n\t      profits,\tand the question is not one  of\t the
\n\t      distribution of profits at all.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Though a contractual term of payment of rent operated  after
\nthe  profits  were ascertained and on the  insufficiency  to
\nmeet certain obligations was discovered, the House of  Lords
\ndid  not find any difficulty in holding that the  deductions
\nfor rent were made only for ascertaining the profits and not
\nfor  distributing  the same. The decision of  the  Court  of
\nAppeal\tin  British  Sugar  Manufacturers,  Ltd.  v.  Harris
\n(Inspector  of\tTaxes(1) is rather  instructive.   There,  a
\ncompany carrying on a manufacturing business agreed with two
\nother companies to pay them a stated percentage of its\t“net
\nprofits” in consideration of their giving to the company the
\nfull benefit of their technical and financial knowledge\t and
\nexperience,  and  giving to the company\t and  its  directors
\nadvice\tto  the best of their ability.\tThe  question  arose
\nwhether\t in  computing the profits of the  company  for\t the
\npurpose\t of income-tax, the company was entitled  to  deduct
\nthe sums so paid as being money wholly and exclusively\tlaid
\nout  or expended for the purposes of the trade\twithin\tRule
\n3(a) of Cases I and II. Greene, M.R., pithily observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “Once\tyou  realise  that as  a  matter  of
\n\t      construction the word “profits” may be used in
\n\t      one sense for one purpose and in another sense
\n\t      for another purpose, I think you have the real
\n\t      solution of the difficulties that have  arisen
\n\t      in this case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Applying\tthat test, the Master of  the  Rolls
\n\t      held that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t “In the present case there are two funds of
\n\t      so-called profits which come into the picture.
\n\t      The  first  one is the fund which\t has  to  be
\n\t      ascertained  for the purposes  of\t calculating
\n\t      the  20 per cent\t………………….\t Now
\n\t      when  that amount has been  ascertained,\tthat
\n\t      fund has ceased to have any usefulness at all,
\n\t      and  it  then becomes necessary  to  ascertain
\n\t      what  are the divisible profits, and for\tthat
\n\t      purpose,\tto take another account,  which\t not
\n\t      only  would bring in depreciation,  but  would
\n\t      also take into
\n\t      (1) [1939] 7 I.T.R. 101, 105, 106, 108-109.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      829<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t    account  the sum that had been paid\t out
\n\t      to the Skoda   works, and the Corporation upon
\n\t      the taking of the first account.”
\n\t\t  Romer,  L.J., put the test in a  different
\n\t      way when he said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    “Is\t the payment that has to be made  by
\n\t      the  trader under the contract in\t question  a
\n\t      mere  division of profits with  another  party
\n\t      or  is  it a payment to the other\t party,\t the
\n\t      amount of which is ascertained by reference to
\n\t      the profits?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  MacKinnon,  L.J. stated much to  the\tsame
\n\t      effect thus:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    “The whole question in this, as in other
\n\t      cases,  is  whether this, which is  an  annual
\n\t      payment, is an annual payment to be taken into
\n\t      account in order to ascertain the profits,  or
\n\t      is  it  an annual payment payable out  of\t the
\n\t      profits  after they have been  ascertained?  I
\n\t      think the true facts of this case are  that it
\n\t      is of the former character.  The difficulty in
\n\t      the   case  arises  largely  because  of\t the
\n\t\t\t    necessary  ambiguity in the word “prof
\nits”  and
\n\t      the  fact that in this agreement “profits”  as
\n\t      a word does appear; but “profits”, as I think,
\n\t      quite clearly of a different description\tfrom
\n\t      the annual profits or gains with which one  is
\n\t      concerned in assessing the income-tax.”\n<\/p>\n
This  decision accepts the principle that a contract  or   a
\nstatute may provide for the ascertainment of two profits for
\ndifferent  purposes and the question to be decided  in\teach
\ncase  is whether the amount claimed as deduction is  payable
\nout  of\t the real profits. The Judicial Committee  again  in
\nRaja  Bejoy  Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,
\nCalcutta(1)  emphasized\t the concept of real income  in\t the
\ncontext of payment of income-tax.  Lord Macmillan,  speaking
\nfor  the  Board, after adverting to the Imperial  System  of
\nincome-tax legislation, proceeded to observe:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“The correlative of the obligation to return
\n\t      as  income sums which are really charges\tupon
\n\t      the  taxpayer’s  income\t  is  the  right  to
\n\t      reimbursement    of    the   tax\t  on\tsuch
\n\t      charges.\t The Indian Income-tax Act makes  no
\n\t      similar\t\tprovision for the  deduction
\n\t      of   tax\tat  the\t source\t  and\t\t the
\n\t      consequent  reimbursement of the\ttaxpayer  in
\n\t      the\t  case of such a charge as  that  to
\n\t      which  the  revenues  of\tthe  appellant\t are
\n\t      subject  …………………………  that
\n\t      the  omission from the Indian Act of any\tsuch
\n\t      provision\t\t     points  rather  to\t  an
\n\t      intention to tax, in Lord Davey’s Phrase, only
\n\t      “the real income” of. the taxpayer, than to an
\n\t      intention\t  to   impose,\twithout\t  right\t  of
\n\t      reimbursement, a tax on what is a charge\tupon
\n\t      his income.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1) L.R. (1933) 60 I.A. 196, 202.\n<\/p>\n
826<\/span><\/p>\n
The  concept  of  “real income” is  also  expounded  in\t the
\ndecision of the Bombay High Court in H.M. Kashiparekh &\t Ca.
\nLtd.  v.  Commissioner\tof Income-tax,\tBombay\t North\t(1).
\nThere,\t under\tthe managing agency agreement  the  managing
\nagent  was  under  a duty to forgo up to  one-third  of\t its
\ncommission where the profits of the managed company were not
\nsufficient to pay a dividend of 6 per cent.  The  contention
\nof the Revenue that such a surrender of the commission under
\nthe provisions mentioned in the agreement was not deductible
\nfor the\t purpose of income-tax was negatived.  The principle
\nhas been succinctly stated in the head note thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “The principle of real income is not to be
\n\t      subordinated  as\tto  amount  virtually  to  a
\n\t      negation of it when a surrender or  concession
\n\t      or  rebate  in  respect  of  managing   agency
\n\t      commission  is  made, agreed to  or  given  on
\n\t      grounds\tof  commercial\texpediency,   simply
\n\t      because  it  takes place some time  after\t the
\n\t      dose of an accounting year.  In examining\t any
\n\t      transaction  and situation of this nature\t the
\n\t      court  would have more regard to\tthe  reality
\n\t      and  speciality of the situation\trather\tthan
\n\t      the  purely theoretical or doctrinaire  aspect
\n\t      of  it.  It will lay greater emphasis  on\t the
\n\t      business\taspect\tof the matter  viewed  as  a
\n\t      whole   when   that  can\t be   done   without
\n\t      disregarding statutory language.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Now\t let  us look at two of the cases  on  which  strong
\nreliance is placed on behalf of the Revenue. In Mersey Docks
\nand  Harbour  Board  v.\t Lucas(3)   the\t harbour  board\t was
\nempowered  by  Act  of Parliament to levy dock\tdues  to  be
\napplied in maintaining the concern and in paying interest on
\nmoneys borrowed; any surplus income remaining after  meeting
\nthese  charges\twas  directed to be  applied  in  forming  a
\nsinking\t fund  to  extinguish  the  debt  incurred  in\t the
\nconstruction  of the docks.  It went to reduce\tthe  capital
\nliability.  The question was whether the sum carried to\t the
\nsinking\t fund,\tand  the surplus carried  to  the  following
\nyear’s\taccounts, were “profits” within the meaning  of\t the
\nIncome-tax  Acts.  The House of Lords held that the  surplus
\nwas  profit  assessable to the incometax. In this  case\t the
\nsurplus\t income formed the sinking fund and was utilised  to
\npay off the debts of the harbour board; therefore, the Court
\nrightly held that the said amount was utilised by the  board
\nfrom and out of its profits and, therefore, the said surplus
\ncould  not be an allowable deduction.  The decision  of\t the
\nQueen’s\t Bench\tDivision  in  Paddington  Burial  Board\t  v.
\nCommissioners  of  Inland Revenue(3) was also based  on\t the
\nsame  principle. Under a public Act of Parliament  a  burial
\nground\twas  provided out of the poor rates, and  fees\twere
\ncharged to persons using it; any
\n(1) (1960) 39 I.T.R. 706, 707.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1883) 2 T.C. 25. (3) (1884) 2 T.C. 46.\n<\/p>\n
       827<\/span><\/p>\n
surplus of income over expenditure was applied in aid of the
\npoor  rates  as required by the Act.  It was held  that\t the
\nsurplus\t was a profit assessable to income-tax.\t It will  be
\nseen  that  the burial ground was managed on behalf  of\t the
\nParish\tof  Paddington and the surplus was applied  for\t the
\nbenefit of the parishners.  In the words of Day, J., it\t was
\na business carried on for the benefit of the rate-payers  of
\nthe parish of Paddington.  This case also, therefore,  dealt
\nwith  payments\tout of profits utilised for the\t benefit  of
\nthose on whose behalf the business was conducted.  In  Young
\n(H.  M.\t Inspector of Taxes) v. Racecourse  Betting  Control
\nBoard(1) the question that arose was whether the  Racecourse
\nBetting Control Board was entitled in computing the  profits
\nof  the trade of totalisatot operator for the years  1953-54
\nand 1954-55 to deduct certain payments.\t The Board would  be
\nentitled, under the appropriate statutes, to deduct  payment
\nof  moneys wholly and exclusively laid out or  expended\t for
\nthe  purpose  of trade.\t It was held in that case  that\t the
\nsaid payments were all voluntary payments and were not\tmade
\nfor the purpose of the trade.  This decision has no  bearing
\non the question raised before us.\n<\/p>\n
  The said decisions lead to the following results:  Income-
\ntax  is a tax on the real income, i.e., the profits  arrived
\nat on commercial principles subject to the provisions of the
\nIncome-tax Act. The real profits can be ascertained  only by
\nmaking\tthe  permissible deductions.  There is\ta  clear-cut
\ndistinction  between  deductions made for  ascertaining\t the
\nprofits\t and distributions made out of profits.\t In a  given
\ncase  whether the outgoings fall in one or the other of\t the
\nheads  is  a question of fact to be found  on  the  relevant
\ncircumstances,\t having\t regard\t to   business\t principles.
\nAnother\t distinction  that shall be borne in  mind  is\tthat
\nbetween\t the real and the statutory profits,  i.e.,  between
\nthe   commercial profits and statutory profits.\t The  latter
\nare  statutorily fixed for a specified purpose.\t If we\tbear
\nin mind these two principles there will be no difficulty  in
\nanswering the question raised.\n<\/p>\n
  The appellant-company is a commercial undertaking. It does
\nbusiness  of  the  supply  of  electricity  subject  to\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act.  As a business  concern  its\treal
\nprofit has to be ascertained on the principles of commercial
\naccountancy.   As  a licensee governed by  the\tstatute\t its
\nclear profit is ascertained in terms of the statute and\t the
\nschedule annexed thereto.  The two profits are for different
\npurposes–one  is  for commercial and tax purposes  and\t the
\nother  is  for\tstatutory purposes in order  to\t maintain  a
\nreasonable  level  of rates.  For the purposes of  the\tAct,
\nduring the accounting years the\t assessee  credited the said
\namounts\t to the “Consumers Benefit Reserve  Account”.\tThey
\nwere part of the excess amount paid to it and reserved to be
\nreturned  to the consumers.  They did not form part  of\t the
\nasessee’s  real\t profits.   So, to  arrive  at\tthe  taxable
\nincome of the  assessee from the business
\n   (1) (1959) 38 T.C. 452 (H.L.).\n<\/p>\n
(D)5SCI–14
\n828<\/span>
\nunder  s.  10(1)  of the Act, the said amounts\thave  to  be
\ndeducted from its total income.\n<\/p>\n
    In this view it is not necessary to express our  opinion
\non the question whether the said amounts would be  allowable
\ndeductions under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The next question is whether the amounts so reserved for
\nfuture\tpayment\t were deductible in  computing\tthe  income,
\nprofits\t or  gains  from the assessee’s\t  business  for\t the
\nassessment  years 1953-54 and 1954-55.\tIt is  not  disputed
\nthat   the   assessee  adopts  the  mercantile\t system\t  of
\naccounting.   The  liability  to  return  the  amounts\t was
\nincurred  by  the assessee during  the\trelevant  accounting
\nyears.\t  This\t Court\theld  in  Calcutta  Co.\t  Ltd.,\t  v.
\nCommissioner  Income-tax,  West\t Bengal(1)  that  where\t  an
\nassessee  maintained his accounts on mercantile\t basis,\t the
\naccrued\t liability  and the estimated expenditure  which  it
\nwould  incur in discharging the same could be deducted\tfrom
\nthe  income  of\t the  accounting  year\tin  which  the\tsaid
\nliability  accrued.   Indeed, this legal  position  was\t not
\ncontested on behalf of the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  result we answer the question referred  to\t the
\nHigh Court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
\nThe  order of the High Court is set aside. The\tappeals\t are
\nallowed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
829<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 April, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 30, 1965 SCR (3) 818 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: POONA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/1965 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. […]<\/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-163056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPoona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 April, 1965 - 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\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-14T18:51:39+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 April, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-14T18:51:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965\"},\"wordCount\":4329,\"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\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965\",\"name\":\"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-14T18:51:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 April, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 April, 1965 - 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\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-14T18:51:39+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 April, 1965","datePublished":"1965-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-14T18:51:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965"},"wordCount":4329,"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\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965","name":"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-14T18:51:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poona-electric-supply-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-april-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 April, 1965"}]},{"@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\/163056","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=163056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}