{"id":197997,"date":"2009-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-25T15:05:12","modified_gmt":"2015-11-25T09:35:12","slug":"naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, R.S. Mohite<\/div>\n
                                     -1-\n\n\n\nmgn\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n                    INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.58 OF 1991\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                                                          \n      Ingersoll-Rand (India) Ltd.                   )\n\n      Naybaker House, S.K. Ahire Marg,              )\n\n      Bombay-25.                                    )..Applicant\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n             Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n      Commissioner of Income-tax,                   )\n\n      Bombay City-IV,      Bombay.\n                                   ig               )..Respondent\n                                 \n      Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Sr.Counsel with Mr. Nishit Joshi\n\n      i\/b. Crowford Beylay & Co.,          for the Applicant.\n\n      Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for Respondent.\n              \n           \n\n\n\n                                CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &\n\n                                        R.S.MOHITE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                DATE:   4th April,2009<\/p>\n
      JUDGMENT: (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.).\n<\/p>\n
      .      The    following    questions have been referred            for<\/p>\n
      our   consideration    at    the instance of      the    assessee.\n<\/p>\n
      They read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “(i)     Whether,     on   the    facts    and     in       the<\/p>\n
             circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right<\/p>\n
             in    law in holding that sur-tax payable          pursuant<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                    -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
           to    the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 was<\/p>\n
           not    an   admissible      deduction in     computing          the<\/p>\n
           total income for the year under reference?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (ii)     Whether,      on    the     facts   and       in       the<\/p>\n
           circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right<\/p>\n
           in law in holding that the set-on liability under<\/p>\n
           Section 15 of the Payment of Bonus Act, amounting<\/p>\n
           to     Rs.24,73,865\/-       was    not   allowable         as       a<\/p>\n
           deduction     in    computing the total income of               the<\/p>\n
           assessee for the year under reference?’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    2.     The    following<\/p>\n
                                reference      has been made        by     the<\/p>\n
    Tribunal     for our consideration at the instance of                  the<\/p>\n
    Revenue:-\n<\/p>\n
           “Whether,     on the facts and in the         circumstances<\/p>\n
           of    the   case, the Tribunal was right in              law      in<\/p>\n
           holding      that    weighted       deduction     u\/s.35B         is<\/p>\n
           allowable     in respect of interest paid on packing<\/p>\n
           credit amounting to Rs.4,10,054\/-.?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3.     We    may   first    deal     with    question      No.(i)        as<\/p>\n
    referred at the instance of the assessee.              The Tribunal<\/p>\n
    held   that    every   High Court has        decided     the      matter<\/p>\n
    against     the assessee by taking a view that the sur-tax<\/p>\n
    payment     is not an allowable deduction under Section 37<\/p>\n
    of the Act.     Reliance was placed in the judgment of the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                              -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
    Andhra     Pradesh High Court in the case of Vazir                        Sultan<\/p>\n
    Tobacco       Co.       Ltd.,       (174 ITR 689.       The    issue      is     no<\/p>\n
    longer res integra as now the question is covered by the<\/p>\n
    judgment of the Supreme Court in Smith Kline and French<\/p>\n
    (India)       Ltd.      & Ors.       vs.    Commissioner of Income Tax,<\/a><\/p>\n
    219    ITR    581(S.C.).             In the light of      the      above       the<\/p>\n
    question      is     answered in the affirmative                against        the<\/p>\n
    assessee and in favour of the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    4.      That brings us to the second question referred at<\/p>\n
    the    instance         of the assessee, whether the               provisions<\/p>\n
    Bonus    Act      was<\/p>\n
    for set-on liability under Section 15 of the Payment of<\/p>\n
                              allowable deduction in              computing        the<\/p>\n
    total    income         of    the    assessee     for    the     year       under<\/p>\n
    reference.          We may at once note that Section 15(1)                       of<\/p>\n
    the    Payment of Bonus Act lays down that where for                           any<\/p>\n
    accounting        year       the    allocable     surplus       exceeds        the<\/p>\n
    amount of maximum bonus payable to the employees in the<\/p>\n
    establishment           under Section 11, then the excess shall,<\/p>\n
    subject      to     a    limit of twenty per cent of               the      total<\/p>\n
    salary    or      wage       of    the     employees    employed        in     the<\/p>\n
    establishment           in    that    accounting       year,     be     carried<\/p>\n
    forward      for being set on in the succeeding                    accounting<\/p>\n
    year    and    so       on    up to and inclusive         of     the      fourth<\/p>\n
    accounting        year       to    be utilised for       the     purpose         of<\/p>\n
    payment of bonus.\n<\/p>\n
    5.      The    issue         has been considered by            several        High<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                         -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
    Courts.          We    may firstly consider the judgment of                  the<\/p>\n
    M.P.        High      Court    in the case of     Malwa       Vanaspati          &<\/p>\n
    Chemical         Co.       Ltd.   vs.   Commissioner of        Income-tax,<\/p>\n
    M.P., 154 ITR 655.             The M.P.   High Court on considering<\/p>\n
    the    provisions was pleased to hold that the                     liability<\/p>\n
    is    not    a     subsisting      liability      as    such       for       the<\/p>\n
    accounting         year,      but it is a contingent liability                 as<\/p>\n
    this    section merely enforces an accounting arrangement<\/p>\n
    on    the    assessee company so that the interest                    of     the<\/p>\n
    workers      in       the future years may be       safeguarded.               It<\/p>\n
    further      observed         that the Section by itself does                not<\/p>\n
    create the liability.\n<\/p>\n
    paid    to    the workers.\n                                      \n                                      The amount is not required to be\n\n                                       It is also not required              to     be\n                                     \n    deposited         with an authority under the Bonus Act.                     The\n\n    workers      have no claim on the amount and cannot enforce\n\n    the    payment         thereof    by any means.     It    is       merely        a\n             \n\n\n    reserve      fund which the company has to create by reason\n          \n\n\n\n    of    the    provisions of Section 15(1) of the Payment                        of\n\n    Bonus Act.         It, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that\n\n    set    on bonus is not allowable as business                   expenditure\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    in computing the assessee’s income.\n<\/p>\n
    6.      The       Andhra Pradesh High Court had also                occasion<\/p>\n
    to    consider         the issue in Rayalaseema Mills              Ltd.        v.\n<\/p>\n
    Commissioner           of   Income-tax,    A.P.   155 ITR          19.       The<\/p>\n
    learned      Bench considering the provisions of Section 15<\/p>\n
    was    pleased to hold that the statutory obligation                         for<\/p>\n
    setting      on       is    confined only to the       four      succeeding<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
    accounting        years,    whereafter the assessee is free           to<\/p>\n
    make    such use of the amount, if any, remaining, as                 it<\/p>\n
    thinks fit.        Considering that the amount is required to<\/p>\n
    be    set    apart with the assessee himself for a           limited<\/p>\n
    period      to meet its bonus obligation in the         succeeding<\/p>\n
    account      years,      if necessary, and also because,         after<\/p>\n
    the expiry of the prescribed period, the said amount or<\/p>\n
    the    balance, if any, becomes a part and parcel of                the<\/p>\n
    general      revenues      of the assessee, it cannot      be      said<\/p>\n
    that    the money is diverted from the assessee under                 an<\/p>\n
    overriding        legal obligation.    It considered the aspect<\/p>\n
    that<\/p>\n
            deduction claimed does not fall under Section<\/p>\n
    not being expenditure expanded by the assessee.                It was
\n                                                                          37<\/span><\/p>\n
    then sought to be put under Section 28 on the reasoning<\/p>\n
    that    the amount is diverted under an overriding               legal<\/p>\n
    obligation.         Considering the argument obligation,            the<\/p>\n
    Court observed that the amount does not reach the hands<\/p>\n
    of    the    assessee at all.      Even before it    reaches        the<\/p>\n
    assessee,        it is diverted to another person or fund             by<\/p>\n
    virtue      of    the    overriding legal obligation.        As     the<\/p>\n
    allocable        surplus is determined out of the profits             of<\/p>\n
    the    assessee,        all that Section 15 of the    Payment         of<\/p>\n
    Bonus    Act      requires is that the surplus amount,           after<\/p>\n
    paying the maximum bonus, should be carried forward for<\/p>\n
    a limited period.          The bonus reserve the Court observed<\/p>\n
    is created voluntarily for the same purpose and it will<\/p>\n
    not    be allowed as deduction.        The Court then held that<\/p>\n
    when    the bonus reserve is created voluntarily for                the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
    same    purpose it would not be available as a debt.                          The<\/p>\n
    money     is    required to be set apart and is not paid                        to<\/p>\n
    third     party, nor is it paid into a fund from which                          it<\/p>\n
    never comes back to the assessee as after the expiry of<\/p>\n
    the prescribed period if the amount is not utilised for<\/p>\n
    payment       of     bonus    it becomes part and parcel               of     the<\/p>\n
    general       revenue.        The amount so set apart              cannot       be<\/p>\n
    said    to be “liability already accrued” and, therefore,<\/p>\n
    arrived       at     a conclusion that it is not a              permissible<\/p>\n
    deduction.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
    P.K.\n<\/p>\n
            The     Kerala\n\n              Mohammed      Pvt.\n                                    \n                                 High Court considered the\n\n                                       Ltd.        vs.     Commissioner\n                                                                        issue       in\n\n                                                                                    of\n                                   \n    Income-tax, 162 ITR 587.\n                        587              Considering the nature of the\n\n    fund    the     Court    held      that   it    is     a    reserve          fund\n\n<\/pre>\n
    statutorily created and retained by the assessee itself<\/p>\n
    and could not be claimed as permissible deduction under<\/p>\n
    Section    37      of the Income Tax Act.             The amount         to     be<\/p>\n
    paid as Bonus from out of the reserve fund could not be<\/p>\n
    ascertained        under     the    liability        accrued      in     future<\/p>\n
    covering the period of four years.                   A provision to meet<\/p>\n
    an    unascertained future contingent liability was not a<\/p>\n
    permissible        deduction.       As the amount was not paid                  to<\/p>\n
    the    employee it was not a permissible deduction                         under<\/p>\n
    Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.                     It noted that<\/p>\n
    there    is     no    diversion of fund in the              hands      of     the<\/p>\n
    assessee       and the amount reserved is for the purpose of<\/p>\n
    utilisation        to   meet    the liability          of    the     assessee<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                           -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
    himself       if    it may arise in the future.                  There        is    no<\/p>\n
    diversion       of revenue which has to be deducted for                            the<\/p>\n
    purpose of determining the real profits of the assessee<\/p>\n
    or     that there is an expenditure liable to be                         deducted<\/p>\n
    under       the Income-tax Act.           It is not a deduction                  with<\/p>\n
    respect to accrued liability.                   It, therefore, held that<\/p>\n
    it was not maintainable.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n    8.       A    contrary        view has been taken by               the     Gauhati\n\n    High     Court in India Carbon Ltd.                  vs.     Commissioner           of\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    Income-tax,        180       ITR   117.        The    Gauhati       High       Court\n\n    proceeded\n\n    amount       for business.\n                                       \n<\/pre>\n
                    to hold that the assessee cannot utilise the<\/p>\n
                                        On making deposit it is divested<\/p>\n
    of    the     right      to invest or utilise              the   amounts           for<\/p>\n
    business.       The amounts have to be paid in future in the<\/p>\n
    course       of a cycle of four years.                If utilised would be<\/p>\n
    in    contravention           of the Act and punishable.                 On      this<\/p>\n
    basis    it     held      that the amount            deposited        under        the<\/p>\n
    provisions         of the Act and which cannot be utilised for<\/p>\n
    the    purposes         of    business amount to            expenditure            and<\/p>\n
    allowable.\n<\/p>\n
    .       Amongst the High Courts, therefore, there are two<\/p>\n
    different views, though the majority of the High Courts<\/p>\n
    have    taken       a    view      that   it    is     not    an        allowable<\/p>\n
    deduction.\n<\/p>\n
    9.      On     behalf        of    the applicant,          however,        learned<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
    Counsel         drew    our    attention to the    judgment       of     the<\/p>\n
    Supreme         Court in Bharat Earth Movers vs.          Commissioner<\/p>\n
    of Income-tax,<\/a> 245 ITR 428,
\n                           428 to contend that considering<\/p>\n
    the ratio of that judgment, the allocable surplus would<\/p>\n
    be    an    allowable deduction.A few facts may              be     noted.\n<\/p>\n
    The    company had floated a scheme for its employees for<\/p>\n
    encashment        of    leave.    The officers were       entitled         to<\/p>\n
    earned leave calculated at 30 days per year.                   The staff<\/p>\n
    (other      than officers) were entitled for vacation leave<\/p>\n
    of    18 days in a year.          Both earned leave and         vacation<\/p>\n
    leave      could be accumulated upto a maximum of 240                   days<\/p>\n
    and 126 days respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    by
\n                                      ig  The company created a found<\/p>\n
          making a provision for meeting such liability.                       If<\/p>\n
    the    employee        accumulates leave in a       particular          year<\/p>\n
    then    in      the succeeding year the employee           may      either<\/p>\n
    avail      of    the    leave or apply for encashment.              If     he<\/p>\n
    avails      of    the    leave then       additional    provision        for<\/p>\n
    encashment        is    not made in the reserve         account.         The<\/p>\n
    earned      leave\/vacation leave, could be encashed subject<\/p>\n
    to    the    ceiling      on    accumulation.      A    leave     reserve<\/p>\n
    account was maintained so as to provide for encashment.\n<\/p>\n
    Encashment        of both earned leave and vacation leave was<\/p>\n
    paid    from      the leave reserve.         The High Court       took       a<\/p>\n
    view    that the provision for accrued leave salary was a<\/p>\n
    contingent         liability      and,     therefore,     was     not        a<\/p>\n
    permissible        deduction.       In so holding the High            Court<\/p>\n
    observed        that    the    liability will arise       only      if     an<\/p>\n
    employee        does not go on leave and instead applies                 for<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                          -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
    encashment.      If the employee avails of the leave as per<\/p>\n
    his   entitlement, then he would be paid salary for                            the<\/p>\n
    period    of leave and liability for encashment would not<\/p>\n
    arise.       The other event on the occurrence of which the<\/p>\n
    employee       may    stake      his       claim    is    termination            or<\/p>\n
    retirement which again is an uncertainty.\n<\/p>\n
    .       Before    the      Supreme      Court      on    behalf       of       the<\/p>\n
    assessee      it was contended that subject to the ceiling,<\/p>\n
    every    employee would either avail of the leave or seek<\/p>\n
    encashment       and,      therefore,        the       liability          is       a<\/p>\n
    certainty.\n<\/p>\n
    Dealing<\/p>\n
                    It cannot be called a contingent liability.\n<\/p>\n
                 with the business liability the Court observed<\/p>\n
    as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “The law is settled;            if a business liability has<\/p>\n
            definitely        arisen      in the accounting            year,       the<\/p>\n
            deduction         should       be       allowed    although            the<\/p>\n
            liability         may    have      to     be     quantified            and<\/p>\n
            discharged        at    a    future date.        What      should        be<\/p>\n
            certain      is    the incurring of the liability.                       It<\/p>\n
            should    also      be capable of being estimated                     with<\/p>\n
            reasonable          certainty            though      the          actual<\/p>\n
            qualification          may    not    be possible.            If     these<\/p>\n
            requirements are satisfied the liability is not a<\/p>\n
            contingent        one.       The liability is in             praesenti<\/p>\n
            though    it      will be discharged at a future                    date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It    does    not make any difference if                 the      future<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                            -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
            date       on    which       the liability shall have               to     be<\/p>\n
            discharged is not certain.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Reliance      was       placed       on   the judgment       in      Metal       Box<\/p>\n
    Company       of India Ltd.          v.   Their Workmen<\/a> (1969) 73 ITR<\/p>\n
    53    (SC).\n<\/p>\n
          (SC)      The Company there had two gratuity                        schemes<\/p>\n
    and the amount of liability was deducted from the gross<\/p>\n
    receipts      in the profit and loss account.                 The         company<\/p>\n
    had    worked out on an actuarial valuation its estimated<\/p>\n
    liability and made provision for such liability not all<\/p>\n
    at    once    but       spread    over a       number   of    years.             The<\/p>\n
    practice<\/p>\n
    the    company
\n                  followed<\/p>\n
                        worked<\/p>\n
                                   by the company was that every<\/p>\n
                                     out      the    additional            liability
\n                                                                                    year<\/p>\n
    incurred      by    it     on    the employees       putting           in     every<\/p>\n
    additional      year of service.              The gratuity was            payable<\/p>\n
    on    the termination of an employee’s service either due<\/p>\n
    to    retirement,         death or termination of            service,            the<\/p>\n
    exact time of occurrence of the latter two events being<\/p>\n
    not    determinable           with    exactitude before            hand.         The<\/p>\n
    Court    then laid down principles which are referred                              to<\/p>\n
    in the judgment.           Based upon these principles the Court<\/p>\n
    in    Bharat Earth Movers (supra) held that the provision<\/p>\n
    made by the appellant company for meeting the liability<\/p>\n
    incurred      by    it     and the leave         encampment          scheme        is<\/p>\n
    entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts for the<\/p>\n
    accounting      year during which the provision is made for<\/p>\n
    the    liability         as    the liability was certain                and      not<\/p>\n
    contingent.         The important aspect to be noted is                         that<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                          -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
    the    provisions        in the leave reserve was only made                 if<\/p>\n
    the employee did not avail of the leave.\n<\/p>\n
    10.     The    question        is    whether     the   ratio     of      this<\/p>\n
    judgment      in    Bharat Earth Movers (supra) can              be      made<\/p>\n
    applicable         in    the    case    of    making   provision          for<\/p>\n
    allocation      of surplus under Section 15 of the                  Payment<\/p>\n
    of    Bonus    Act.         The answer to the question          would       be<\/p>\n
    whether      the    liability is a subsisting liability or                    a<\/p>\n
    contingent liability in terms of the tests laid down in<\/p>\n
    Bharat Earth Movers (supra).                For it to be a subsisting<\/p>\n
    liability,<\/p>\n
    discharged
\n                    though<\/p>\n
                    at      a
\n                                  it<\/p>\n
                                 future<\/p>\n
                                        may have to be<\/p>\n
                                           date, there must
\n                                                           quantified<\/p>\n
                                                                  be     a
\n                                                                              and<\/p>\n
                                                                              (1)<\/span><\/p>\n
    incurring      of    liability (is) it should be            capable         of<\/p>\n
    being     estimated          with     reasonable    certainty        though<\/p>\n
    actual.       In Bharat Earth Movers (supra) the                liability<\/p>\n
    was certain as the amount was credited in the fund only<\/p>\n
    in    the event the employee had not availed of the leave<\/p>\n
    The leave available to an employee in the course of the<\/p>\n
    year    is also known, based on whether he was an officer<\/p>\n
    or employee.\n<\/p>\n
    .       In the instant case what the assessee is required<\/p>\n
    by    statute to do is to keep a reserve with itself,                       of<\/p>\n
    what    is    known as allocable surplus to meet                a    future<\/p>\n
    shortfall      if    any,      for a period of four        years.         The<\/p>\n
    shortfall       cannot         be     estimated     with      reasonable<\/p>\n
    certainty,      though statutorily the liability has to                     be<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                          -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
    incurred.         The extent of the liability also cannot                       be<\/p>\n
    estimated        with    reasonable certainty as if there                    were<\/p>\n
    profits      to meet the bonus liability the reserve                       would<\/p>\n
    not    be    expended.         Only in the event         there       were       no<\/p>\n
    sufficient        profits      would    the    allocable        surplus         be<\/p>\n
    utilised        to meet the liability.          The amount is merely<\/p>\n
    a reserve fund which the Payment of Bonus Act mandates.\n<\/p>\n
    After the expiry of four succeeding accounting years if<\/p>\n
    the amount is not utilised the assessee is free to make<\/p>\n
    use    of the amount.          The amount to be adjusted for                  the<\/p>\n
    subsequent        year,      depends therefore on         the       shortfall<\/p>\n
    which<\/p>\n
               cannot be anticipated with reasonable certainty.\n<\/p>\n
    The amount is not deducted in the hands of the assessee<\/p>\n
    unless it is utilised.              The deduction claimed is not an<\/p>\n
    accrued      liability        but only a provision under                Section<\/p>\n
    15(1)      of    the    Payment of Bonus Act to meet                a    future<\/p>\n
    liability,        if any.      It is, therefore, not certain                  nor<\/p>\n
    is    it    capable      of being ascertained           with      reasonable<\/p>\n
    certainty.          In      our    opinion    it   is     a       contingent<\/p>\n
    liability.        The judgment in Bharat Earth Movers (supra)<\/p>\n
    is     clearly         distinguishable         and,     therefore,            not<\/p>\n
    applicable.         The question No.2, therefore, referred at<\/p>\n
    the    instance        of    the    assessee    is    answered          in    the<\/p>\n
    affirmative        in    favour of the Revenue and against                    the<\/p>\n
    assessee.\n<\/p>\n
    11.     We      lastly      come to the question referred at                  the<\/p>\n
    instance        of the Revenue.        The question as referred                 is<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                   -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
    as    set    out in para.2.   Considering the tax    incidence<\/p>\n
    the    learned Counsel for the Revenue does not press the<\/p>\n
    same.       In   the light of that the question referred         at<\/p>\n
    the instance of the Revenue is returned unanswered.\n<\/p>\n
    .       Reference answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
          (R.S. MOHITE,J.)            (F.I.REBELLO,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:53 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009 Bench: F.I. Rebello, R.S. Mohite -1- mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.58 OF 1991 Ingersoll-Rand (India) Ltd. ) Naybaker House, S.K. Ahire Marg, ) Bombay-25. )..Applicant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ) […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNaybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009 - 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\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-25T09:35:12+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T09:35:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2565,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T09:35:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009 - 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\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-25T09:35:12+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T09:35:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009"},"wordCount":2565,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009","name":"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T09:35:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naybaker-house-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naybaker House vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/197997","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=197997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}