{"id":207214,"date":"1969-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969"},"modified":"2016-07-16T09:52:45","modified_gmt":"2016-07-16T04:22:45","slug":"bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969","title":{"rendered":"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 9 December, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 9 December, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1076, \t\t 1970 SCR (3) 314<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBENGAL ENAMEL WORKS LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/12\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C. (CJ)\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1076\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 314\n 1970 SCC  (1) 112\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax  Act\t (11  of  1922),  s.  10(2)(xv)-Payment\t  of\nremuneration  by, employer to employee-Jurisdiction  of\t tax\nofficers  to hold that expenditure was not laid\t wholly\t and\nexclusively for the purpose of business-Whether question  of\nLaw.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant, which was doing the business of manufacturing\nenamelled ware, appointed a technical adviser and the  Board\nof  Directors  resolved to pay him 15% of the  gross  annual\nprofits\t as  his remuneration. .For  the  assessment  years,\n1951-52,  1952-53  and 1953-54, the  appellant\tclaimed\t the\namounts\t  paid\tto  the\t technical  adviser  as\t  admissible\nallowances  under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act,  1922.\nThe Income-tax Officer found, that the technical adviser was\na  doctor of medicine without any special qualification\t for\nthe  post,  that  he was not trained  in  the  technique  of\nenamelled ware, that he and his father-in law, by the number\nof shares they held, were able to control the voting  before\nthe  Board  of\tDirectors, that good  technical\t experts  in\nenamelling   could   have  been\t secured   for\t a   smaller\nremuneration, that the remuneration agreed to be paid to the\ntechnical   adviser  was  influenced   by   extra-commercial\nconsiderations\tand  therefore,\t disallowed a  part  of\t the\namount, holding that it was expenditure not incurred  wholly\nand exclusively for the purpose of the business.  The  order\nwas  confirmed by the Appellant Assistant Commissioner,\t the\nTribunal and the High Court.\nIn appeal to this Court.\nHELD : The question whether an amount claimed as expenditure\nwas  laid  out or expended wholly and  exclusively  for\t the\npurpose\t of  the business must be decided on the  facts\t and\ncircumstances of each case, and the inference drawn from the\nfacts  found  is one of law.  Ordinarily,  an  employer,  in\nfixing the remuneration of his employee, is entitled to take\ninto consideration the extent of his business, the nature of\nduties\tto  be\tperformed,  the\t special  aptitude  of\t the\nemployee,  the\tfuture prospects of the business  and  other\nrelated\t circumstances,\t and the taxing\t authorities  cannot\nsubstitute their own view as to the reasonable\tremuneration\nwhich  should have, been agreed to be paid to the  employee.\nBut,  the  taxing  authority  may  disallow  an\t expenditure\nclaimed,  on the ground that the payment is not real  or  is\nnot incured by the assessee in the course of his business or\nthat it is not laid out wholly and exclusively for the\tpur-\npose  of the business.\tIn doing so, the authority does\t not\nsubstitute  its\t own  view of how  the\tassessee's  business\naffairs\t should\t be managed, but proceeds  to  disallow\t the\nexpenditure, because, the condition of its admissibility  is\nabsent. [316 B, D; 317 F-H', 318 A, D]\nSwadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T., U.P.<\/a> 63 I.T.R.  57\n(S.C.), followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  2143  to
\n2145 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
315<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeals\t from the judgments and orders dated March 18,\t1965
\nof  the\t Calcutta High Court in Income-tax  References\tNos.
\n154, 155. and 156 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
M.C.  Chagla,  P.  C. Bhartari, and 0. C.  Mathur,  for\t the
\nappellant (in C.As. Nos. 2143 and 2144 of 1968).
\nS.Mitra,  P.  C.  Bhartari  and 0.  C.\tMathur,\t for  the
\nappellant (in C.A. No. 2145 of 1968).\n<\/p>\n
S.T. Desai, S. K. Aiyar and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent
\n(in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court delivered by
\nShah,  Actng C.J. These appeals relate to the assessment  to
\ntax of M\/s.  Bengal Enamel Works Ltd.-a public limited\tcom-
\npany-for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54.
\nThe  Company is doing business of manufacturing\t “enamelled-
\nware.\tIt  had\t originally employed  a\t “technician’  at  a
\nmonthly\t salary of Rs. 5001-.  In June 1941  the  technician
\nwas relieved, and one Col.  Bhattacharya who was a  director
\nof the Company was appointed its “Technical Adviser.” He was
\nto  receive as remuneration 15% of the gross annual  profits
\nof the Company.\t Col.  Bhattacharya resigned his office\t and
\nDr. Ganguly (son-inlaw of Col.\tBhattacharya) was  appointed
\nto that office.\t The Board of Directors resolved on May\t 18,
\n1950  to pay to Dr. Ganguly 15% of the gross annual  profits
\n(without deducting depreciation) as his remuneration.
\nIn  the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and-\t1953-54\t the
\nCompany\t claimed under s. 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax\tAct,
\n1922,  as  admissible allowance, in  computing\tits  taxable
\nincome,\t  Rs.  52,947\/-,  Rs.  64,356\/-\t and  Rs.   79,227\/-
\nrespectively, paid as remuneration to Dr. Ganguly under\t the
\nterms of the resolution dated May 48, 1950.  The  Income-tax
\nOfficer, Companies District III, Calcutta, allowed for\teach
\nof  the years remuneration at the rate of Rs. 42,000\/-\tonly
\nas  a  permissible deduction.  The order  was  confirmed  in
\nappeal\tto the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and  by\t the
\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n
 The Tribunal referred in respect of each of the three years
\nthe following question:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the  case,
\nthe  disallowance of a part of the expenses incurred by\t the
\nassessee  ‘for\tpayment\t of remuneration  to  its  Technical
\nAdviser is permissible under the Provisions of s. 10(2) (xv)
\nof the Indian Income-tax Act)”\n<\/p>\n
216<\/span><\/p>\n
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, and\n<\/p>\n
-disallowed  the claim of the Company.\tWith certificate  of
\nfitness,  these appeals are preferred against the  order  of
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
In  computing the taxable income of an assessee, whether  an
\namount\tclaimed\t as  expenditure was laid  out\tor  expended
\nwholly\tand  exclusively for the purpose of  the,  business,
\nprofession  or vocation of the assessee must be\t decided  on
\nthe  facts  and in the light, of the circumstances  of\teach
\ncase : Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.  Ltd. vs.  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax,  U.P.<\/a>(1). Resolution of the assessee fixing\t the
\nremuneration  to  be paid to an employee and  production  of
\nvouchers  for  payment\ttogether  with\tproof  of  rendering
\nservice\t do not exclude an enquiry whether  the\t expenditure
\nwas  laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of\t the
\nassessee’s  business.\tIt is open to the  Tax\tOfficers  to
\nhold  agreement to pay and payment notwithstanding-that\t the
\nexpenditure was not laid out wholly and exclusively for\t the
\npurpose\t of  the business: Swadeshi Cotton  Mills  Co.Ltd.’s
\ncase(‘).   But\tan inference from the facts found  that\t the
\nexpenditure  was,  wholly and exclusively laid out  for\t the
\npurpose\t of the business is one of law and not of fact,\t and
\nthe High Court in a reference under s. 66 of the  Income-tax
\nAct is competent to decide that the inference raised by\t the
\nTribunal is erroneous in law.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t present  case, the facts found\t are  these  :\tCol.
\nBhattacharya and his son-in-law Dr. Ganguly were two of\t the
\ndirectors of the Company who between them held on January 1,
\n1950  49% of the total number of shares of the\tCompany\t and
\nthe  other  directors of the Company held only I  %  of\t the
\nshares.\t  Dr.  Ganguly\thad  received  no  training  in\t the
\ntechnique  of  enamelling : he was  a  medical\tpractitioner
\nearning\t Rs.  20,000\/-\tper annum by  the  exercise  of\t his
\nprofession.  Apparently no applications were invited for the
\nappointment  of a Technical Adviser when Col.\tBhattacharya
\nresigned  his  office.\t In the\t resolution  passed  by\t the
\nDirectors  it  was recorded that many  “personal  enquiries”
\nregarding  the\tpost were made, but no candidate  was  found
\nsuitable   The\tBoard,\tit  was\t recorded,  considered\t the
\napplications  of  S.  Urbeneck\tand  J.\t Schulser  but\t the
\nqualifications\tof these two candidates did not impress\t the
\ndirectors:  moreover  the  terms of service  offered  by  J.
\nSchulser were not acceptable to the Board and therefore\t the
\nonly  applicant Dr. Ganguly who was working on Probation  in
\nthe  post  for\tsome  time  past  and  had  worked   without
\nremuneration  up  to December 31, 1949\twas  considered\t the
\napplications  of S. urbeneck and J. Schulser  though  called
\nfor  by the Incometax Officer were not produced by the\tCom-
\npany.\tAt  the relevant time “a good  technical  expert  in
\nenamelling”\n<\/p>\n
(1) 63 I.T . R. 57.\n<\/p>\n
317<\/span><\/p>\n
could  be secured for a monthly remuneration of Rs.  1,000\/-
\nor Rs. 1,200\/- provided that appointment was not for a short
\nperiod.\n<\/p>\n
In  the view of the Income-tax Officer, Dr. Ganguly came  to
\nbe appointed to the post of Technical Adviser of the Company
\nas  soon  as, his father-in-law vacated the  post  and\t“the
\ngenerous  remuneration\toffered\t to him\t was  influenced  by
\nfactors\t  other\t  than\t commercial   considerations,\t and
\nconsidering that Dr. Ganguly was giving up his\tprofessional
\npractice in allopathic medicine which yielded him an  annual
\nincome\tof  Rs. 20,000\/- to engage himself as  a  whole-time
\nAdviser attending to the development of the industry a gross
\nremuneration\tof   Rs.   3,500\/-   per    month,    beside
\nthe .remuneration of Rs. 1,000\/- per month that he  obtained
\nas Secretary of the Managing Agents of the Company, would be
\nadequate.”   With   that  view\t the   Applicate   Assistant
\nCommissioner  and  the Income-tax  Appellate  Tribunal\thave
\nsubstantially agreed.  The Tribunal observed that they\twere
\ninclined to conclude that “extra-commercial  considerations”
\nhad  influenced the fixation of remuneration of Dr.  Ganguly
\nand  that  partial  disallowance  of  the  remuneration\t “so
\ninfluenced seems quite fair”.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Company urged, relying upon the judgments of
\nthis Court in J. K. Woollen Manufacturers v. Commissioner of
\nIncome-tax,  U.P.<\/a>(1) and Commissioner of Income-tax,  Bombay
\nv.  Walchand & Co. Private Ltd.<\/a>(‘) that in  determining\t the
\nadmissibility  of an allowance as expenditure laid  out\t and
\nexpended  wholly  and exclusively for thee  purpose  of\t the
\nbusiness  has to be adjudged from the point of view  of\t the
\nemployer and not of the revenue, the Taxing authorities\t had
\nno power to disallow the remuneration paid to its  Technical
\nAdviser,  merely  because they think that  the\tCompany\t may
\nprobably have secured the services of another Adviser for  a
\nsmaller\t remuneration.\t But these cases, in  our  judgment,
\nhave no bearing here.  The departmental authorities have not
\nattempted  to  reduce the allowance on the ground  that\t the
\nremuneration   paid  to\t Dr.  Ganguli  was  in\ttheir\tview
\nexcessive.   Indisputably  an employer in fixing  the  remu-
\nneration   of  his  employee  is  entitled  to\t take\tinto
\nconsideration  the  extent of his business,  the  nature  of
\nduties\tto  be\tperformed,  the\t special  aptitude  of\t the
\nemployee,  the\tfuture prospects of the business  and  other
\nrelated\t circumstances\tand the\t taxing\t authorities  cannot
\nsubstitute their own view as to the reasonable\tremuneration
\nwhich  should have been agreed to be paid to  the  employee.
\nBut the taxing authority may disallow an expenditure claimed
\non  the\t ground\t that  the payment is not  real\t or  is\t not
\nincurred  by the assessee in the course of his business,  or
\nthat  it  is  not laid out wholly and  exclusively  for\t the
\npurpose of the business
\n(1) A.I.R. 1969. S.C. 609.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 65 I.T.R. 381.\n<\/p>\n
318<\/span><\/p>\n
of the assessee.  Thereby the authority does not  substitute
\nits own view of how, the assessee’s business affairs  should
\nbe managed, but proceeds to disallow the expenditure because
\nthe condition of its admissibility is absent.
\nIt, has been uniformly found by all the authorities that the
\nremuneration agreed to be paid to Dr. Ganguly was influenced
\nby  “extra-commercial  considerations”.\t Dr. .\tGanguly\t and
\nCol.   Bhattacharya were able to control the  voting  before
\nthe Board of Directors.\t Dr. Ganguly was not trained in\t the
\ntechnique   of\t.  enamelled-ware,”  and  had\tno   special
\nqualifications for the post.  The remuneration agreed to  be
\npaid  was much in excess of what was normally  payable,\t and
\nalso  of  what\tDr. Ganguly was earning\t by  practising\t his
\nprofession as a doctor of medicine.  The criticism that\t the
\nTribunal’s finding was based on no evidence or was based  on
\nirrelevant  considerations  cannot  therefore  be  accepted.
\nWhere an amount paid to an-employee pursuant to an agreement
\nis  excessive because of “extra-commercial  considerations,”
\nthe taxing authority has jurisdiction to disallow a part  of
\nthe amount as expenditure not incurred wholly and “elusively
\nfor the purpose of the business : Swadeshi Cotton Mills\t Co.
\nLtd.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.\tOne hearing
\nfee.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t Appeals dismissed.\n(1) 63 I.T.R. 57.\n319<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 9 December, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1076, 1970 SCR (3) 314 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. (Cj) PETITIONER: BENGAL ENAMEL WORKS LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/12\/1969 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. (CJ) BENCH: […]<\/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-207214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 9 December, 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\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 9 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-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=\"1969-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-16T04:22:45+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 9 December, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-16T04:22:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969\"},\"wordCount\":1516,\"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\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969\",\"name\":\"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 9 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-16T04:22:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 9 December, 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":"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 9 December, 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\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 9 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-16T04:22:45+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 9 December, 1969","datePublished":"1969-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-16T04:22:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969"},"wordCount":1516,"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\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969","name":"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 9 December, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-16T04:22:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bengal-enamel-works-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-9-december-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 9 December, 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\/207214","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=207214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}