{"id":171404,"date":"1960-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960"},"modified":"2018-08-04T23:09:38","modified_gmt":"2018-08-04T17:39:38","slug":"raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960","title":{"rendered":"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 15 December, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raja Bahadur Visheshwara … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 15 December, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1062, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 287<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJA BAHADUR VISHESHWARA SINGHAND OTHERS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHARAND ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/12\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1062\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 287\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\tTax-Purchase and sale of shares and securities\twith\nsurplus money-Such transactions, if amount to investment  or\nbusiness  in shares-Test-Excess sale proceeds-If  amount  to\nbusiness profit or mere accretion to capital-Indian  Income-\ntax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 66(2).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant used to invest his cash surplus in shares\t and\nsecurities and maintained an account book called Book No.  1\nrelating thereto.  During the period from 1930 to 1941-42 he\npurchased  a large number of shares and securities which  by\nthe  accounting year 1941-42 were of a value Rs. 1491  lacs.\nHe  sold  certain  shares and securities  of  the  value  of\nseveral\t lacs  and made certain amount of  profit  on  those\nsales.\t In  1940 the appellant borrowed a large  amount  of\nmoney from his brother, the Maharaja of Darbhanga and opened\na  new\taccount\t named account No.  2  which  contained\t all\nentries regarding shares purchased and sold out of the money\nborrowed from the Maharaja.  In the assessment year  1944-45\nto 1948-49 the profits made by the\n(1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 279.\n288\nappellant  from\t purchase  and sale of\tshares\tamounted  to\nseveral\t lacs  and the Income-tax Officer held those  to  be\nliable\tto  income-tax as business profits.   The  Appellate\nAssistant  Commissioner upheld the assessments but  excluded\nthe  profits for the years 1944-45.  On appeal by  both\t the\nparties the Appellate Tribunal held on the evidence that the\nappellant  was\tto  be regarded as a dealer  in\t shares\t and\nsecurities  and\t therefore the profits\twere  assessable  to\nincome-tax.   The  High\t Court\tstated\tthe  following\t two\nquestions under s. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act and  answered\nthem in the affirmative:-\n\"(1)  Whether  in the circumstances of the  case,  there  is\nmaterial  to support the finding of the\t Appellate  Tribunal\nthat the assessee was a dealer in shares and securities with\nrespect to each of the account and, therefore, liable to  be\ntaxed?\n(2)Whether  having regard to the finding of the\t Appellate\nTribunal  in respect of 1941-42 assessment, it- was open  to\nthe Appellate Tribunal in the present case to hold that\t the\nprofits and transactions of sale and purchase of shares\t and\nsecurities amounted to profits of business and so liable  to\nbe taxed?\"\nOn  appeal  by special leave the appellant  contended  inter\nalia, that being a Zamindar the buying and selling of shares\nwas not his normal activity and he did not carry on any such\nbusiness  but his purchases and sales were in the nature  of\ninvestments  of his surplus monies and therefore the  excess\namounts received by sales were capital receipts being merely\nsurplus and not profits.\nHeld, that on the materials produced and on the facts proved\nthe  appellant must be held to have been  rightly  assessed.\nThe  principle applicable to such transactions is that\twhen\nan owner of an ordinary investment chooses to realise it and\nobtains\t a higher price for it than the original price\tpaid\nby  him,  the enhanced price is not a profit  assessable  to\nincome tax, but where as in the present case what is done is\nnot  merely a realisation or a change of investment  but  an\nact done in what is truly the carrying on of a business\t the\namount recovered as appreciation will be assessable.\nG.Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-<\/a>\ntax, [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 464, Oriental Investment  Company\nLtd.  v. The Commissioner of Income-tax,<\/a> [1958]\t S.C.R.\t 49,\nRaja  Bahadur  Kamakshya  Narain Singh\tv.  Commissioner  of\nIncome-tax,  Bihar  and\t Orissa,<\/a> (1943) L.R.  70  I.A.\t180,\ndiscussed.\nThe  substantial nature of the transactions, the  manner  in\nwhich the books were maintained, the magnitude of the shares\npurchased  and sold and the ratio between the purchases\t and\nsales and the holding justified tile Tribunal to come to the\nconclusion  that  the  appellant was dealing  in  shares  as\nbusiness.   The\t High Court could not interfere\t with  those\nfindings  and  it  rightly answered  the  questions  in\t the\naffirmative.\nThere is no such thing as res judicata in income-tax matters\n289\nand it was quite open to the Appellate Tribunal to give\t the\nfinding that it did.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 137 to\t 141
\nof 1958.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nApril  26, 1956 of the Patna High Court in  Misc.   Judicial
\nCases Nos. 362 to 366 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. K. Majumdar and I.  N. Shroff,
\nfor the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 (In all the appeals).
\nHardayal Hardy and D. Gupta, for the respondent (In all\t the
\nappeals).\n<\/p>\n
1960.  December 15.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nKAPUR,\tJ.-The\tassessee who is the  appellant\thas  brought
\nthese  five  appeals against the judgment and order  of\t the
\nHigh  Court of Patna by which it answered the two  questions
\nstated\tunder s. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act  against
\nthe  appellant and in favour of the Commissioner of  Income-
\ntax.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\tis the son of the  late\t Maharajadhiraja  of
\nDarbhanga  and\tthe brother of the  present  Maharaja.\t The
\nfather\tdied in 1929 and the appellant was given by  way  of
\nmaintenance  the  Estate of Rajnagar.  He was also  given  a
\nyearly allowance of Rs. 30,000 which was later raised to Rs.
\n48,000.\t From 1929, the appellant invested his cash  surplus
\nin  shares and securities, the account of which was  entered
\nin  what  is called Account Book No. 1. From the  year\t1930
\nonwards\t up  to the year 1941-42 the appellant\tpurchased  a
\nlarge\tnumber\tof  shares  and\t securities  which  by\t the
\naccounting year 1941-42 were of the value of Rs. 14.91 lacs.
\nDuring this period the appellant sold shares and  securities
\nin the accounting years 1936-37 and 1939-40 of the value  of
\n1.48  lacs  and\t 1.69 lacs respectively.   He  made  certain
\namount\tof  profits on these sales but under orders  of\t the
\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax in the former case and  of\t the
\nIncome-tax Tribunal in the latter case, these sums were\t not
\nassessed to income-tax.\t In the
\n290<\/span>
\naccounting years 1942-43 to 1946-47 the appellant  purchased
\nand  sold  some\t shares and  securities.   The\t entries  in
\nAccount No. 1 stood as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
  Total value of    Total cost of      Total cost of shares
\n  shares  &  securities\t shares and    and  securities\tsold
\ncost at the\t       securities pur\tduring the year.\n<\/p>\n
  beginning of the    chased during the\n     year.\t       year.\n1350 Fs.  Rs. 14.66 lacs      Nil\t  Rs. 4.68 lacs\n942-43\t\t\t\t\t  (13 items)\n1351 Fs.  Rs. 9.98 lacs\t     Rs. 2.37 lacs.   Rs. 416 lacs\n1943-44\t\t\t     (4 items)\t       (12 items)\n\t\t\t      Rs. 3-05 lacs.  Rs. 069 lacs\n1352 FS.    Rs. 8.20 lacs     (2 items) and\t(3 items)\n1944-45\t\t\t      other call money.\n1353 Fs.     Rs. 10.52 lacs\t Nil\t    Rs. 1.03 lacs\n     1945-46\t\t (3 items)\n1354 Fs.   Rs. 9.50 lacs      Rs. 15 83 lacs.  Rs. 3.39 lacs\n1946-47\t\t\t     ( 9items)\t\t  (2 items)\n<\/pre>\n
and  in\t all these years the appellant\tmade  profits  which
\nvaried\tfrom Rs. 2,56,959 in the accounting year  194243  to
\nRs. 33,174 in the accounting year 1946-47.
\nOn  July 16, 1940, the appellant arranged an overdraft\twith
\nthe  Mercantile\t Bank  of India and  actually  withdrew\t Rs.
\n10,000\tfor  the purchase of shares.  But  his\tbrother\t the
\nMaharaja  advanced to him without interest Rs. 10  lacs\t and
\nthus  the overdraft was paid off.  A new Account was  opened
\nin the books of the appellant named No. 2 Investment Account
\nwhich  contained all entries in regard to  shares  purchased
\nand   sold  from  out  of  the\tmoney  borrowed\t  from\t the
\nMaharajadhiraj.\t  In this account entries of  the  different
\nyears were as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
292<\/span><\/p>\n
was held not to. be taxable.  Thus in the second period\t the
\nassessee was held not to be carrying on\t any trade.  In\t the
\nthird period, i.e., the assessment years 1944-45 to  1948-49
\nthe profits made by the appellant from purchase and sale  of
\nshares were as\tfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
1944-45…Rs.2,62,000 and odd
\n1945-46…Rs.3,95,000 and odd
\n1946-47…Rs.1,57,000 and odd
\n1947-48…Rs.1,33,000 and odd
\n1948-49…Rs.  76,000 and odd
\nThe Income-Tax Officer held these to be liable to income-tax
\nas  business  profits.\tOn appeal  the\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner excluded the profits for the years 1944-45\t and
\n1945-46 but for the years 1946-47 to 1948-49 the assessments
\nwere  upheld.\tBoth  parties  appealed\t to  the   Appellate
\nTribunal.  It held on the evidence that the appellant was to
\nbe  regarded  as  a  dealer in\tshares\tand  securities\t and
\ntherefore  the profits were assessable to  income-tax.\t The
\nappellant applied for a case to be stated under s. 66(1)  of
\nthe Income-tax Act.  This application was dismissed but\t the
\nHigh  Court made an order under s. 66(2) of  the  Income-tax
\nAct to state a case on two questions of law.  The  questions
\nwere as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)…Whether  in\t the  circumstances  of\t the
\n\t      case, there is material to support the finding
\n\t      of  the Appellate Tribunal that  the  assessee
\n\t      was  a  dealer in shares and  securities\twith
\n\t      respect\tto   each  of  the   accounts\tand,
\n\t      therefore, liable to be taxed?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)…Whether,  having regard to the  findings
\n\t      of  the  Appellate  Tribunal  in\trespect\t  of
\n\t      1941\/42\tassessment,  it\t was  open  to\t the
\n\t      Appellate Tribunal in the present case to hold
\n\t      that the profits and the transactions of\tsale
\n\t      and purchase of shares and securities amounted
\n\t      to  profits  of business and so liable  to  be
\n\t      taxed ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High Court held that the facts and circumstances  which
\nthe  Tribunal  took into consideration in  arriving  at\t the
\nfinding were the material before the Tribunal to support the
\nfinding and the first question
\n293<\/span>
\nwas  answered in the affirmative and therefore\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.  In regard to the second question the answer\t was
\nagain in the affirmative and against’, the appellant who has
\ncome to this Court by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t argued on behalf of the appellant that he  was\t not
\ncarrying  on the business of buying and selling\t shares\t but
\nhis purchases and sales were in the nature of investments of
\nhis surplus monies and therefore the excess amounts received
\nby sales were capital receipts being merely surplus and\t not
\nprofits.   It was also submitted that the appellant being  a
\nzamindar the buying and selling of shares was not his normal
\nactivity; that he had a large income and it was his  surplus
\nincome\twhich  he  was investing in buying  the\t shares\t and
\nwhenever  he found it profitable he converted  his  holdings
\nand securities and for a number of years from 1931-32 he had
\nbeen  buying shares but he did not sell them; that the\tvery
\nnature\tof  investments\t was  such  that  they\thad  to\t  be
\nconstantly  changed so that the monies invested may be\tused
\nto  the best advantage of the investor; and that  the  sales
\nwere  really for the purpose of reemploying the monies\tthat
\nhe had invested to his best advantage.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for  the  appellant relied upon  certain  cases  in
\nsupport of his submission that the first question raised was
\nof  a  wider  amplitude and that  it  had  been\t erroneously
\nrestricted  by the High Court and that its true\t import\t was
\nthe  same  as  of the questions which  were  raised  in\t the
\nfollowing  cases  decided by this Court.  He  relied  on  G.
\nVenkataswami  Naidu & Co. v. The Commissioner of  Income-tax<\/a>
\n(1),  Oriental Investment Co., Ltd. v. The  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax,  Bombay<\/a>  (2).  In the former case  the  assessee
\npurchased four plots of land adjacent to the mills of  which
\nhe was the Managing Agent.  On various dates and about\tfive
\nyears  later  sold them to the mills in\t which\the  realized
\nabout Rs. 43,000 in excess of his purchase price.  This\t was
\ntreated\t by  the Income-tax authorities as purchase  with  a
\nview to sell at a profit.  The question referred was whether
\nthere was material for the
\n(1) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 646.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1958] S.C.R. 49.\n<\/p>\n
294<\/span><\/p>\n
assessment  of\tthat  amount  as  income  arising  from\t  an
\nadventure in the nature of trade.  The High Court held\tthat
\nthat  was  the nature of the transaction.   On\tappeal\tthis
\nCourt  held  that  before the Tribunal\tcould  come  to\t the
\nconclusion that it was an adventure in the ‘nature of trade,
\nit  had\t to take into consideration the\t legal\trequirements
\nassociated  with  the concept of the trade or  business\t and
\nthat  such a question was a mixed question of law and  fact.
\nIt  was also held that where a person invests money in\tland
\nintending  to hold it and then sells it at a profit it is  a
\ncase  of  capital accretion and not profit derived  from  an
\nadventure  in the nature of trade but if a purchase is\tmade
\nsolely\tand exclusively with the intention to resell  it  at
\nprofit and the purchaser never had any intention to hold the
\nproperty  for  himself there would be a\t strong\t presumption
\nthat the transaction is in the nature of trade but that\t was
\nalso a rebuttable presumption.\tThe purchase in the  absence
\nof  any\t rebutting evidence was held to fall in\t the  latter
\ncategory,  i.e., adventure in the nature of trade.   In\t the
\nOriental  Investment case(1) the assessee was an  investment
\ncompany.  It had purchased certain shares and sold them\t and
\nqua those shares it claimed to be treated as an investor and
\nnot  a\tdealer on the ground that it did not  carry  on\t any
\nbusiness in the purchase and sale of shares.  The assessee’s
\napplications  for reference to the High Court-were  rejected
\non the ground that no question of law arose out of the order
\nof the Tribunal.  It was held that the question whether\t the
\nassessee’s  business  amounted to dealing in shares  and  in
\nproperties or was merely an investment was a mixed  question
\nof law and fact and the legal effect of the facts found\t was
\na  question  of law and this Court ordered the\tcase  to  be
\nstated\ton  two\t questions  that  it  framed.\tOne  of\t the
\nquestions  was similar to the first question in the  present
\ncase but the second question was a wider one, i.e.,  whether
\nthe profits and losses arising from the sale of shares\tetc.
\ncould be taxed as business profits.\n<\/p>\n
The question which the High Court had to answer
\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 49.\n<\/p>\n
295<\/span><\/p>\n
in the present case was a narrow one and the answer to\tthat
\non  the material before the Court was rightly given  in\t the
\naffirmative.  But even if the question is taken to be  wider
\nin  amplitude,\ton the materials produced and on  the  facts
\nproved\tthe  appellant\tmust be held to\t have  been  rightly
\nassessed.  Counsel for the appellant argued that the amounts
\nreceived  by him in the accounting years were in the  nature
\nof  capital  accretions and therefore not,  assessable.\t  In
\nsupport,  Counsel for the appellant relied on the  following
\ncases:-Raja   Bahadur\tKamakshya  Narain   Singh   v.\t The
\nCommissioner  of Income-Tax, Bihar & Orissa<\/a> (1)\t where\tLord
\nWright observed that profits realised by the sale of  shares
\nmay  be\t capital  if  the seller  is  an  ordinary  investor
\nchanging  his  securities but in some instances\t it  may  be
\nincome if the seller of the shares is an investment  company
\nor  an insurance company.  The other cases relied upon\twere
\nCalifornian  Copper Syndicate Limited v. Harris (2);  Cooper
\nv. Stubbs (3); Leeming v. Jones (4) and Edwards v.  Bairstow
\n& Harrison (5). ….It\tis  not necessary to  discuss  these
\ncases because..the principle applicable to such transactions
\nis that…when an owner of an ordinary investment chooses to
\nrealise\t it  and  obtains  a higher price  for\tit  than  he
\noriginally  acquired  it  at, the enhanced price  is  not  a
\nprofit assessable to income tax but where as in the  present
\ncase what is done is not merely a realisation or a change of
\ninvestment but an act done in what is truly the carrying  on
\nof  a business the amount recovered as appreciation will  be
\nassessable.\n<\/p>\n
In  July  1948 the appellant had  borrowed,  though  without
\ninterest,  a large sum of money to the extent of  about\t Rs.
\n10,00,000,  no\tdoubt from his brother.\t He  started  a\t new
\naccount\t calling  it  No. 2  Investment\t Account.   For\t the
\nassessment years under appeal shares purchased and sold were
\nof  a large magnitude ranging from Rs. 4.68 lacs to  Rs.  69
\nthousands  in what is called the first account and from\t Rs.
\n9,64,000 or even if Port Trust Debentures are excluded
\n(1) [1943] L.R.70 I.A. 180,194.\t    (2) [1904] 5 T.C. 259.
\n(3) [1925] 10 T.C. 29, 57.\t     (4) [1930] 15 T.C. 333
\n(5)..[1955] 36 T.C. 207.\n<\/p>\n
296<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs. 3,60,000 to Rs. 30,000.  The magnitude and the frequency
\nand  the ratio of sales to purchases and total holdings\t was
\nevidence from which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal  could
\ncome  to  the  conclusion  as to  the  true  nature  of\t the
\nactivities  of\tthe  appellant.\t  The  principle  which\t  is
\napplicable  to the present case is what we have\t said  above
\nand on the evidence which was before the Tribunal, i.e., the
\nsubstantial nature of the transactions, the manner in  which
\nthe  books had been maintained, the magnitude of the  shares
\npurchased  and sold and the ratio between the purchases\t and
\nsales  and  the holdings, if on this material  the  Tribunal
\ncame  to the conclusion that there was material\t to  support
\nthe  finding that the appellant was dealing in shares  as  a
\nbusiness, it could not be interfered with by the High  Court
\nand in our opinion it rightly answered the question  against
\nthe appellant in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
The  second question is wholly unsubstantial.  There  is  no
\nsuch  thing  as\t res judicata in  income-tax  matters.\t The
\nAppellate  Tribunal  has  placed in  a\ttabulated  form\t the
\nactivities  of the appellant showing the buying and  selling
\nand  the  magnitude  of\t holdings  and\tit  cannot  be\tsaid
\ntherefore that it was not open to the Appellate Tribunal  to
\ngive the finding that it did.\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t opinion  the High Court rightly  held\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.  The appeals are therefore dismissed with  costs.
\nOne hearing fee in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
297<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raja Bahadur Visheshwara … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 15 December, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1062, 1961 SCR (3) 287 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: RAJA BAHADUR VISHESHWARA SINGHAND OTHERS. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHARAND ORISSA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/12\/1960 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. […]<\/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-171404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaja Bahadur Visheshwara ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 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\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-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=\"1960-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-04T17:39:38+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 15 December, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T17:39:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2172,\"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\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960\",\"name\":\"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T17:39:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 15 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":"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 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\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-04T17:39:38+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 15 December, 1960","datePublished":"1960-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T17:39:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960"},"wordCount":2172,"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\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960","name":"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 15 December, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T17:39:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-bahadur-visheshwara-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-15-december-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raja Bahadur Visheshwara … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 15 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\/171404","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=171404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}