{"id":21214,"date":"1965-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965"},"modified":"2017-11-19T23:14:06","modified_gmt":"2017-11-19T17:44:06","slug":"a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965","title":{"rendered":"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 21 January, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 21 January, 1965<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: (1965) 67 BOMLR 403, 1966 59 ITR 645 Bom<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Desai<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Desai, Y Tambe<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  V.S. Desai, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. On a requisition by the High Court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-<br \/>\ntax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the<br \/>\ncase referring the following question which it was directed to refer :<br \/>\n  &#8220;Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the<br \/>\nTribunal justified in holding that the application for registration was rightly rejected by<br \/>\nthe income-tax authorities on the ground that there was no instrument of partnership<br \/>\n?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The question arises out of the proceedings relating to the assessment of the<br \/>\nassessee for the assessment year 1950-51, for which the relevant accounting year<br \/>\nwas the year ended on 31st December, 1949. The business of the assessee was of<br \/>\nexporting raw wool, produced in Rajasthan, to England and America. It also owned a<br \/>\nfactory for ginning and pressing wool, an ice factory and a flour mill at a place in the<br \/>\nerstwhile Indian State of Palanpur. The States in which the assessee was carrying on<br \/>\nits business merged in the Indian Union, and from the 1st of August, 1949, the Indian<br \/>\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, became applicable to the area. For the purpose of the<br \/>\nassessment of the assessee for the year 1950-51, it applied for registration under<br \/>\nsection 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act on 20th February, 1953. That application<br \/>\nwas signed by two persons as the partners of the assessee firm, namely, Mohanbhai<br \/>\nDevjibhai Hirani and R. M. Dave. The partnership was alleged to have come into<br \/>\nexistence from the 1st January, 1946. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat Dave was not a partner of the alleged partnership firm, because there was no<br \/>\nregular deed of partnership; secondly, the bank declarations of three banks showed<br \/>\nthat Dave was not a partner; and there were also certain other documents which<br \/>\nshowed that Dave was only a manager. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, refused<br \/>\nregistration. In the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he held that Dave<br \/>\nwas associated with the partnership and there was evidence showing that he was a<br \/>\nworking partner. He, however, held that there was no instrument of partnership under<br \/>\nwhich the assessee-firm was constituted within the meaning of section 26A of the<br \/>\nAct, and the Income-tax Officer, therefore, was right in refusing registration. In the<br \/>\nsecond appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the<br \/>\ndepartmental authorities, holding that the partnership was not constituted under an<br \/>\ninstrument of partnership within the provisions of section 26A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Admittedly no properly executed partnership deed was produced before the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Officer. What was produced before him was an alleged draft of the<br \/>\npartnership deed which was said to have been written up late in 1949. The assessee&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase was that Mohanbhai Devjibhai, one of the partners, had gone to Pakistan and<br \/>\nwas unable to return to India for reasons of health. When the Indian Income-tax Act<br \/>\nbecame applicable in August, 1949, the partners wanted to have a deed of<br \/>\npartnership executed. A draft was accordingly prepared which was taken by the other<br \/>\npartner, Dave, to Pakistan, where it was shown to Mohanbhai Devjibhai, and was<br \/>\napproved of by him. It was also agreed to between the partners that the regular deed<br \/>\nof partnership should be executed in India on the return to India of Mohanbhai.<br \/>\nMohanbhai, however, could not return to India and the draft therefore remained<br \/>\nunexecuted. In addition to this document, the assessee also relied on certain<br \/>\ndocuments, which were : an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bombay,<br \/>\npassed on 30th September, 1950, relating to the right, title and interest of Mohanbhai<br \/>\nDevjibhai in the wool ginning and pressing factory, the ice factory and the flour mill,<br \/>\netc. In this order, it was observed by the Custodian that there was evidence to<br \/>\nsupport the view that Dave was accepted as a working partner by Mohanbhai for a<br \/>\nperiod up to 1956 with eight annas share in the profits. The next document was a<br \/>\ncopy of the writ application made by Dave in the High Court against the order of the<br \/>\nCustodian of Evacuee Property. This application was made on 2nd January, 1951. The<br \/>\nallegations in this application were to the effect that there was a partnership<br \/>\nbetween him and Mohanbhai which had commenced from 1946 and in which each of<br \/>\nthem had an eight annas share. This application also made reference to the draft<br \/>\ndeed of partnership which was alleged to have been made late in 1949 and approved<br \/>\nof by both the partners. In these writ proceedings, an affidavit was put in by<br \/>\nMohanbhai in February, 1951, in which he stated that the draft deed of partnership<br \/>\nreferred to by Dave in the petition was prepared in the circumstances set out in the<br \/>\nwrit petition, and it was agreed that he would execute the said deed of partnership<br \/>\non his return to India from Karachi. A copy of the consent terms alleged to have been<br \/>\nagreed to by the parties to the writ proceedings was also produced. The date on<br \/>\nwhich these consent terms appear to have been agreed upon was 21st November,<br \/>\n1951, and were to the effect that all properties including lands, buildings, structures,<br \/>\nmachinery and plant, acquired or brought or bought with the capital property by the<br \/>\nevacuee for the partnership were to be deemed his exclusive property and all such<br \/>\nproperty bought or acquired with the profits accrued during the partnership was to be<br \/>\ndeemed the partnership property in which Dave was to have eight annas share. It<br \/>\nwas contended on behalf of the assessee that the draft deed of partnership along<br \/>\nwith other documents formed an instrument constituting a partnership and specifying<br \/>\nthe individual shares of the partners.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Now, under section 26A, in order to obtain registration, the firm must be<br \/>\nconstituted under an instrument of partnership which specifies the individual shares of<br \/>\nthe partners. It is now well settled that the instrument of partnership may be a single<br \/>\ndocument or may be spelt out of several documents. It is, however, necessary that<br \/>\nthe single document or the several documents, constituting the partnership<br \/>\ninstrument, must be in existence in the year of account. Now, in the present case, all<br \/>\nthe other documents excepting the alleged draft of partnership deed were not in<br \/>\nexistence in the relevant accounting year which is the year ended on 31st December,<br \/>\n1949, because all of them have come into existence in the relevant accounting year is<br \/>\nthe draft of the partnership agreement, which is said to have been prepared late in<br \/>\n1949. Now, the said document itself is undated and unsigned, and there is nothing in<br \/>\nthe document itself to show that it was in existence in 1949. Moreover, it is difficult<br \/>\nto see how the said document could qualify to be an instrument. The expression<br \/>\n&#8220;instrument&#8221; imports a document of a formal legal kind. In Stroud&#8217;s Judicial Dictionary,<br \/>\nan &#8220;instrument&#8221; is stated to be a writing generally importing a document of a formal<br \/>\nlegal kind. In the Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt, pages 984-985, it is stated<br \/>\nthat an &#8220;instrument&#8221; is a writing and generally means writing of a formal nature. The<br \/>\nShorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning in law of the word &#8220;instrument&#8221; as<br \/>\na formal legal document whereby a right is created or confirmed or a fact recorded; a<br \/>\nformal writing of any kind, as an agreement, deed, charter or record, drawn up and<br \/>\nexecuted in technical form. The Indian Stamp Act, section 2(14), defines an<br \/>\ninstrument as including every document by which any right or liability is or purports to<br \/>\nbe created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. The word<br \/>\n&#8220;instrument&#8221;, therefore, as used in section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act will mean<br \/>\na document of a legal nature, by which any right or liability is or purports to be<br \/>\ncreated, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. The alleged draft<br \/>\nwhich has been produced on behalf of the assessee could not be regarded as having<br \/>\ncreated rights or liabilities or even forming a record of the same. A document, in order<br \/>\nto create rights or liabilities or even to record rights and liabilities, must be executed<br \/>\nby the parties, whose rights or liabilities the document creates or whose rights and<br \/>\nliabilities it records. A mere piece of paper on which appears a recital of certain rights<br \/>\nand liabilities could not by itself be able to fasten the said rights and liabilities to any<br \/>\nparticular person. Mr. Mehta has argued that although the document by itself would<br \/>\nnot be sufficient to show that it is the record of the rights and liabilities of certain<br \/>\nspecified persons, the said document along with further evidence showing that the<br \/>\ncontents of the documents relate to the rights and liabilities of certain specified<br \/>\nindividuals, and that the said certain specified individuals have agreed to and<br \/>\naccepted the said contents, would make it an instrument recording the said facts. We<br \/>\nare afraid, the argument, even if it were sound, does not avail Mr. Mehta in the<br \/>\npresent case. What is required under section 26A is a single document or a number of<br \/>\ndocuments all existing in the relevant account year which will together form an<br \/>\ninstrument of partnership. If the documents by themselves do not have that effect,<br \/>\nthen there is no instrument of partnership as is required under section 26A. In the<br \/>\npresent case the only document alleged to have been in existence in the relevant<br \/>\naccount year is the draft and that by itself cannot show that it is the instrument of<br \/>\npartnership of certain specified individuals, namely, Mohanbhai and Dave. Under<br \/>\nsection 26A, the instrument has to be an instrument not of any partnership, but of<br \/>\nthe partnership of certain specified individuals. A mere record of some terms of<br \/>\npartnership will not make the document an instrument of partnership of certain<br \/>\nspecified individuals. On the argument advanced by Mr. Mehta, what may make it not<br \/>\nthe document itself but the document coupled with certain other evidence. Under<br \/>\nsection 26A, however, it must be the document itself which must constitute the<br \/>\ninstrument of partnership. In our opinion, therefore, the draft of the partnership deed<br \/>\nproduced on behalf of the assessee will not be sufficient to constitute an instrument<br \/>\nof partnership. The other documents, as we have already pointed out, will not avail,<br \/>\nbecause they were not in existence in the year of account, and cannot, therefore,<br \/>\nform part of the instrument of partnership.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The result, therefore, is that the Tribunal was right in the view it took that<br \/>\nthere was no instrument under which the partnership was constituted within the<br \/>\nmeaning of section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Therefore, the question must be answered in the affirmative. The assessee will<br \/>\npay the costs of the department.\n<\/p>\n<p> Question answered in the affirmative.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 21 January, 1965 Equivalent citations: (1965) 67 BOMLR 403, 1966 59 ITR 645 Bom Author: V Desai Bench: V Desai, Y Tambe JUDGMENT V.S. Desai, J. 1. On a requisition by the High Court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income- tax [&hellip;]<\/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-21214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 January, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 January, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-19T17:44:06+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 21 January, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T17:44:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965\"},\"wordCount\":1828,\"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\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965\",\"name\":\"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 January, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T17:44:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 21 January, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 January, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 January, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-19T17:44:06+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 21 January, 1965","datePublished":"1965-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T17:44:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965"},"wordCount":1828,"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\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965","name":"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 January, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T17:44:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-phiroj-and-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-january-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Phiroj And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 21 January, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21214","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=21214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}