{"id":204412,"date":"1969-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969"},"modified":"2018-07-09T00:31:00","modified_gmt":"2018-07-08T19:01:00","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 1183, \t\t 1970 SCR (1) 199<\/div>\n
Author: M Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: M. Hidayatullah, Cj, J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, G.K. Mitter, A.N. Grover<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CALCUTTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOLD MOHORE, INVESTMENT CO.LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/04\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nMITTER, G.K.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR 1183\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 199\n 1969 SCC  (1) 460\n\n\nACT:\nCompany-Allotment  of bonus shares against original  holding\nof  shares -Method of calculating profit or loss on sale  of\noriginal and bonus shares.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent company was a dealer in shares.\t In  respect\nof  each  of  its  holdings  of\t shares\t in  two   different\ncompanies, it was allotted a set of bonus shares which\twere\nto  rank pari passu with the old shares.  Upon allotment  of\nthese  bonus  shares,  the respondent  company\tcredited  an\namount\trepresenting  the  face value of  the  bonus  shares\nreceived free of cost to a capital reserve account.   Later,\nboth the old as well as the bonus shares were sold and,\t in,\nits assessment to income tax for the assessment years  1949-\n50  and\t 1950-51, the respondent assessee company  showed  a\nloss  in respect of the sale of one company's shares  and  a\nsmall  profit  on the sale of the second  company's  shares.\nBoth the profit as well as the loss on each transaction\t was\ncalculated  by\ttaking the actual price paid  for  the\t'Old\nshares\ttogether with the face value of the bonus shares  as\nthe  cost  of  acquiring all  the  shares.   The  Income-tax\nOfficer\t did  not accept this method of calculation  and  he\ncalculated  the profit and the loss on the two\ttransactions\nby  spreading the cost of acquiring the old shares over\t the\ntotal number of shares including the bonus shares acquire  d\nfree of cost.  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as\twell\nas  the Tribunal upheld his view but, the High Court,  on  a\nreference, held in favour of the respondent assessee.\nOn appeal to this Court,\nHELD : The correct method of determining the profit or\tloss\non the sale of bonus shares in cases where bonus shares rank\npari  passu is to take the cost of the original\t shares\t and\nspread it over all the original as well as the bonus  shares\nand to find out the average price of all the shares. [203 B]\nDalmia\tInvestment Company Ltd. v. Commissioner\t of  Income-<\/a>\ntax, Bihar 41, I.T.R. 705; Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar\nv. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd.<\/a> 52 I.T.R. 567; Commissioner of\nIncome-tar,  Central Calcutta v. Gold Mahore Investment\t Co.\nLtd.<\/a> 68 I.T.R. 213 referred to.\nEmerald\t & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay<\/a>  36\nI.T.R. 257 considered and distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1236\t and
\n1237 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated April 27, 1963  of
\nthe  Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No.  65  of
\n1954.\n<\/p>\n
B.   Sen,  T.  A. Ramachandran and R. N. Sachthey,  for\t the
\nappellant (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
Sachin\tChaudhuri,  A. N. Miiter and I. N. Shroff,  for\t the
\nrespondent (in both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah, C.J These are two appeals by the Commis-\n<\/p>\n
200<\/span><\/p>\n
sioner\tof  Income-Tax, Central,  Calcutta  against  Messrs.
\nGold Mohore Investment Co. Ltd. and arise out of  Income-tax
\nReference 65\/54 decided by the Calcutta High Court on August
\n27,  1963.   The  point\t involved  in  the  appeals  is\t the
\nvaluation  of  bonus shares in the assessment  years  ending
\nMarch  31, 1950 and 1951. respectively.\t The previous  years
\ncorresponding  to  the assessment years were  the  financial
\nyears ending 31st March, 1949 and 1950, 1 respectively.
\nThe  Assessee Company is a dealer in shares.’ Its method  of
\nvaluation  at  the opening and closing of the stocks  is  to
\nvalue  shares at cost.\tIn the Assessment Year\t1949-50\t the
\nCompany\t held 2,500 shares of the face value of Rs. 10\teach
\nin the Howrah Mills Co. Ltd.  They had been purchased at Rs.
\n85 per share and the total cost to the Assessee Company\t was
\nRs. 2,12,500.  In June, 1948 bonus shares were issued by the
\nHowrah\tMills  Co. Ltd. in proportion of  three\t shares\t for
\nevery  two original shares.  The bonus shares were  to\trank
\npari passu with the old shares.\t As a result, the  Ass-essee
\nCompany\t obtained  3750 shares of the face value of  Rs.  10
\neach.\tOn  August 2, 1948, the Assessee  Company  sold\t the
\noriginal  shares for Rs. 72,087\/8, i.e. at about Rs. 29\t per
\nshare.\t On March 18, 1949 the Assessee Company\t sold  3,750
\nshares for Rs. 95,250, that is to say, at Rs. 25 per  share.
\nThe  Assessee Company computed a loss of Rs. 84,041\/12.\t  It
\ncalculated the loss in the following manner :\n<\/p>\n
     “Dr. Sold\t\t CT.\n<\/p>\n
     0-8-2500 shares\t 2,12,500-0-0\t2-8-48(2500) sh.
\n72,087-8-C
\n     (old).\t\t (old).\n<\/p>\n
     21-6-48 Cost of\t 1,379-4-0 18-3-49(3750) sh.\t\t 7
\n0,125-0-0
\n     transfer of\t      (bonus)
\n     shares.\t\t (1000) sh.\t25,125-0-0
\n\t\t    bonus.<\/p>\n
\n     2-7-48 By crediting      Loss to P84,041-12-0\n     capital reserve a\/c      &T a\/c\t6250\n     with the face value      6250 sh.\n     of bonus shares\n     received free of\n     cost (3750).   37,500-0-0\n\t  2,51,379-4-0\t\t   2,51,379-4-0\"\n<\/pre>\n
The bonus shares when they were issued were included in\t the
\ntrading\t account.   According to the  Assessee\tCompany\t the
\nbonus shares had fetched as profit Rs. 95,250 less the\tface
\nvalue  of the shares, Rs. 37,500.  This profit was  set\t off
\nagainst\t the loss on the original shares Rs.  2,12,500\tless
\nRs.  72,087\/8, giving the overall los of Rs.  84,041\/12,  as
\nstated above.\n<\/p>\n
The Income-tax Officer did not accept this mode of  calcula-
\ntion.\tAccording  to him the loss was\tRs.  46,541-12-0  as
\nfollows
\n\t\t\t    201<\/span>
\n“Dr.\t\tSold\t\t\t\t Cr.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Rs.  a.P. Rs. a.p.\n<\/p>\n
     O.S. 2500 sh. (sold)     2,12,500-0-0   2-4-48   (2500)
\nsh. 72,087-8-0
\n\t\t\t old.<\/p>\n
\n     21-6-48   Cost of transfer\t   1,378-4-0 18-3-49\n(2750)70,125-0-0\n\t  of shares.\t      bonus.\n<\/pre>\n
     2-7-48 (3700)  sh. bonus (sic.)\tNil_18-3-49 (1000)
\n25,125-0-0
\n\t\t    bonus.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Loss to P&L a\/c\t   46,541-12-0\n\t       2,13,879-4-0\t   2,13,879-4-0\"\n<\/pre>\n
On  appeal to the Tribunal as to which method  was  correct,
\nthe Tribunal accepted the method of valuation of the Income-
\ntax Officer.\n<\/p>\n
In the Assessment year 1950-51, the account year being 1949-
\n50, the Assessee Company held 122 first preference shares of
\nFort  Gloster  Jute  Company  Ltd. which  had  cost  to\t the
\nassessee  company Rs. 22,883\/12\/-.  In the year\t of  account
\nthere  was an issue of bonus shares (second preference)\t and
\nthe  Assessee Company received 137 shares of the face  value
\nof  Rs.\t 100  each.  The Assessee Company  sold\t 125  shares
\n(second preference) for Rs. 14,500.  It was, therefore, left
\nwith  122  shares (first preference) and 12  shares  (second
\npreference).   The AssesseeCompany returned a profit of\t Rs.
\n1,997 as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\"Dr. Rs.\t a.p.\t Cr.  Rs.      a.p.\nO.S. (122)     1 st Pref.     23,883-12-0    18-3-49   (125)\n2nd14,500-0-0\n\t  Pref\n(137)\t  2nd Pref. 13,703-0-0\t   C.S. (122) 1st\n<\/pre>\n
     Profit P&L a\/c 1,997-0-0lst Pref. (12)23,883-12-0
\n(259)\t\t    (12) 2nd Pref. 1,200-0-0
\n     39,583-12-0    (259)3 583-12-0-\n<\/p>\n
It  will be seen that the cost of bonus shares was shown  at
\nthe  face value of the shares plus a minor charge of Rs.  3.
\nRs. 13,703 were credited to capital reserve.  The Income-tax
\nOfficer\t spread\t out the cost of 122 1st  preference  shares
\n(Rs.  23,883\/12) over the 122 shares (first preference)\t and
\n137  shares (second preference).  He worked out the  average
\ncost at Rs. 92\/3\/6 per share and found the profit to be\t Rs.
\n2,973.\tHis method of calculation was as follows
\n“Dr.\t    Sold\t\t\t Cr.\n<\/p>\n
     0,S. 122  1st Pref.23,833-12-0\t14-4-49\t  125\tPref
\n14,503-0-0
\n     137 2nd Pref. free of    NilC.S. 122 lst Pref
\n     cost.\t    12 2nd Pref
\n\t       @9213\/6\t 12,357-5-0
\n     Profit to P&L a\/c\t 2,973-9-0
\n     (259)     26,857-5-0     (259)26,857-5-0″\n<\/p>\n
     L 12 Sup CI\/69-14
\n202<\/span>
\nThe Tiibunal confirmed the assessment as made by the Income-
\ntax  Officer.\tIt  may be pointed out\tthat  the  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner had in each case confirmed the  order
\nof the Income Officer.\n<\/p>\n
The  Income-tax Appellate Tribunal then made a reference  to
\nthe High Court and referred the following questions for\t the
\ndetermination of the High Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1949-50.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Whether in the facts and circumstances herein
\n\t      stated the assessee carrying on share
\n\t      dealing business, can add Rs. 37,500 being the
\n\t      face  value of bonus shares issued to it\tfree
\n\t      of cost on the basis of its old share-holding,
\n\t      as  cost of its share holding for the  purpose
\n\t      of determining loss in dealing in Howrah Mills
\n\t      Co. Ltd. shares?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1950-51.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Whether in the facts and circumstances herein
\n\t      stated,\tthe  assessee  carrying,  on   share
\n\t      dealing business, can add Rs. 13,700 being the
\n\t      face  value of bonus shares issued to it\tfree
\n\t      of  cost on the basis of its old\tshare  hold-
\n\t      ings,  as\t cost of its share holding  for\t the
\n\t      purposes\tof determining profit in dealing  in
\n\t      Fort Gloster Jute Co. shares?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High  Court,  by its judgment dated  August  27,  1963,
\nfollowing  its decision in Income-tax reference No.  54\/1960
\n(from which Civil Appeal 1239 of 1967 is also being  decided
\ntoday)\theld  in favour of the Assessee Company.   The\tHigh
\nCourt purported to follow a decision of the Patna High Court
\nreported  in Dalmia Investment Company Ltd. v.\tCommissioner
\nof Incometax, Bihar().\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sen, in dealing with these appeals, points out that\t the
\ndecision  of  the  Patna High Court in\t41  I.T.R.  705\t was
\nreversed by this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax,  Bihar
\nv.  Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd.<\/a>(2) and the decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  has further been followed in Commissioner of  Income-
\ntax,  Central,\tCalcutta  v.  Gold  Mohore  Investment\t Co.
\nLtd.<\/a>(3). He contends that the method adopted by the  Income-
\ntax  Officer in relation to the Fort Gloster Jute shares  is
\nthe method approved of by this Court, namely, that where the
\nshares\tare  pari passu and the valuation is to be  made  at
\ncost,  the price of the original shares must be spread\tover
\nthe old and the new shares and they must be held to liave
\n(1) 41 I.T.R. 705.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 52 I.T.R. 567.\n<\/p>\n
(3) 68 I.T.R. 213.\n<\/p>\n
203<\/span><\/p>\n
been purchased at the average cost and the profit or loss  .
\nis  to be calculated accordingly.  In the decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  in  Dalmia  Investment Co. Ltd.(1)  four\t methods  of
\ncalculation  were considered.  The first method is  to\ttake
\nthe  cost  as  equivalent to the face  value  of  the  bonus
\nshares.\t  This method was followed by the Assessee  Company.
\nThe second method is to take the cost of the bonus shares at
\nNil, a method adopted by the Income-tax Officer in  relation
\nto the Howrah Mills Co. Ltd.  A third method is to take\t the
\ncost  of  the  original shares and to  spread  it  over\t the
\noriginal shares and the bonus shares taken collectively, and
\na fourth method is to find out the fall in the price of\t the
\noriginal shares at the stock exchange and to attribute\tthis
\nto  the\t bonus\tshares.\t  After\t considering  all  the\tfour
\nmethods, this Court held that the correct method to apply in
\ncases  where bonus shares rank pari passu is to\t follow\t the
\nthird  method,\tnamely,\t to take the cost  of  the  original
\nshares and to spread it over all the original as well as the
\nbonus  shares and to find out the average price of  all\t the
\nshares.\n<\/p>\n
These cases would normally have been decided on the strength
\nof the ruling of this Court but a doubt arose because in  an
\nearlier\t  decision  reported  in  Emerald  &  Co.  Ltd.\t  v.
\nCommissioner  of Income’-tax, Bombay<\/a>(2), this Courts  seemed
\nto have approved of another method.  In that case the  bonus
\nshares\twere not sold.\tIn applying different  methods,\t the
\ndifference was only Rs. 18 and the Court did not, therefore,
\nexpress\t a  final  view\t on  the  matter  and  accepted\t the
\ncalculation  of the Tribunal which was to ignore  the  bonus
\nshares\twhich were not sold and to calculate the profit\t and
\nloss  on  the basis of the original shares, their  cost\t and
\nsale prices.  The Court observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t …. The bonus shares are still there,\t and
\n\t      have  not been sold.  When they are sold,\t the
\n\t      question will arise as to what they cost.\t The
\n\t      books  of the assessees company, as stated  in
\n\t      the statement of the case, include the closing
\n\t      stock  at cost price.  In\t calculating  profit
\n\t      and  loss in the manner done by the  Tribunal,
\n\t      there  is no departure from this system.\t All
\n\t      the  ordinary  shares which were\tbought\twere
\n\t      sold.  Their purchase price is known, as\talso
\n\t      their  sale  price.  The first  assessment  is
\n\t      closed, so far as the assessee company is con-
\n\t      cerned. . . . “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  other words, this Court did not go into the question  of
\nthe  valuation\tof the bonus shares at all but\tdecided\t the
\ncase  on the basis of the original holdings, its cost  price
\nand  its sale price.  The matter was gone into more  closely
\nin the Dalmia’s case(1) and every method of calculation\t was
\nconsidered there.  We were
\n(1) 411.T.R.705.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 36 I.T.R. 257.\n<\/p>\n
204<\/span><\/p>\n
invited to depart from the decision in the Dalmia’s  case(1)
\nwas  to take the view which appeared to have been  taken  in
\nthe Emerald’s case (2).\t We have considered the matter\tonce\n<\/p>\n
-again\tand are of opinion that the method followed  in\t the
\nDalmia’s case(1) is the correct method and there seems to be
\nsome  error  in stating that the method of the\tTribunal  in
\nEmerald’s  case(2) was finally accepted.  Perhaps the  Court
\nintended  saying that the method of the\t Income-tax  Officer
\nwas preferable but by error put down the name of the Income-
\ntax  Appellate\tTribunal.   In any case that  case  did\t not
\ndecide the matter fully because as the Court itself observed
\nthe  difference in the two methods only resulted in  Rs.  18
\nbeing either added to or deducted from the ultimate result.
\nWe  accordingly\t accept the third method.  The\tanswers\t re-
\ncorded\tby the High Court are discharged and we\t answer\t the
\nquestions in the negative.  The cases will be disposed of in
\nthe  light of our observations by the  Income-Tax  Appellate
\nTribunal by calculating the profit and loss by spreading the
\ncost over the original and the bonus shares and finding\t out
\nthe  average cost per share.  The appeals are  allowed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t       Appeal allowed.\n(1)  41 I.T.R. 705\t\t\t\t     (2)  36\nI.T.R. 257\n205<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 1183, 1970 SCR (1) 199 Author: M Hidayatullah Bench: M. Hidayatullah, Cj, J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, G.K. Mitter, A.N. Grover PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CALCUTTA Vs. RESPONDENT: GOLD MOHORE, INVESTMENT CO.LTD. DATE OF […]<\/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-204412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-08T19:01:00+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-08T19:01:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969\"},\"wordCount\":1815,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-08T19:01:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-08T19:01:00+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969","datePublished":"1969-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-08T19:01:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969"},"wordCount":1815,"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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-08T19:01:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-gold-mohore-investment-co-ltd-on-3-april-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Gold Mohore, Investment Co.Ltd on 3 April, 1969"}]},{"@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\/204412","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=204412"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204412\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}