{"id":214303,"date":"1971-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:06:09","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T05:36:09","slug":"t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971","title":{"rendered":"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax … vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax … vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2204, \t\t 1972 SCR (1)\t 30<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nT. S. BALARAM, INCOME TAX OFFICER,COMPANY CIRCLE IV, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  VOLKART BROTHERS, BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/08\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 2204\t\t  1972 SCR  (1)\t 30\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\ttax  Act,  1961, s. 154-Mistake\t apparent  from\t the\nrecord must he a patent mistake on which there can be no two\nopinions-Whether s. 17(1) of Income-tax Act, 1922 applied to\nfirms  is  not\ta  question on which there  can\t be  no\t two\nopinions.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent firm was duly registered under the Income-tax\nAct,  1922  as\twell as the Income tax Act,  1961.   In\t the\noriginal  assessments  of the firm for\tthe  years  1958-59,\n1960-61,  1961-62 and 1962-63 assessments were made  on\t the\nslab  rates  prescribed under the  respective  Finance\tActs\napplicable  to registered firms.  In the individual  assess-\nments of the partners, their respective shares in the income\nof the firm were included and assessed at the maximum  rates\nsince  their  assessment,,;  were  made\t in  the  status  of\nnonresident.   On February 1, 1965 the respondent  firm\t was\nserved with notices dated January 29, 1965 by the Income-tax\nOfficer\t intimating  to it that in its assessments  for\t the\nfour years in question there were mistakes apparent from the\nrecord\tinasmuch  as the firm had not been  charged  at\t the\nmaximum\t rates of tax under s. 17(1) of the Income tax\tAct,\n1922  and  that\t therefore  he\tproposed  to  rectify  those\nassessments  under  s.\t154 of the  Income  tax\t Act,  1961.\nThereafter  the Income-tax Officer assessed  the  respondent\nfirm by applying the provisions of s. 17(1) of the 1922 Act.\nThe respondent challenged the validity of She said orders in\na  writ\t petition under Art. 226 of the\t Constitution.\t The\nHigh Court held that there was no obvious and patent mistake\nin  the original assessment orders and therefore the  Income\ntax  Officer was not competent to pass the  impugned  orders\nunder s. 154.  In appeal by certificate,\nHELD:A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and\npatent mistake and not something which can be established by\na  long drawn process of reasoning on points on which  there\nmay conceivably be two opinions. [34E]\nThe applicability of s. 17(1) to the respondent would depend\nan  the\t decision  of the question whether  a  firm  can  be\nconsidered as a 'person' within the meaning of that section.\nThe term 'person' was defined in the 1922 Act as including a\nHindu  Undivided Family and a local authority.\tIn the\t1961\nAct the definition has been expanded and includes firm.\t  It\nis  a  matter for consideration whether the  new  definition\ncontained  in  s.. 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961  is  an\namendment  of  the law or is merely declaratory of  the\t law\nthat was in force earlier.  To pronounce upon this  question\nit may be necessary to examine various provisions in the Act\nas  well  as  its scheme.  The Income-tax  Officer  it)\t the\npresent case was not justified in thinking that there  could\nbe no two\n31\nopinions  about\t the  applicability of s.  17(1)  .  He\t was\ntherefore  wholly wrong in holding that there was a  mistake\napparent   from\t the  record  of  the  assessments  of\t the\nrespondent. [33F-34D]\nSatyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. v. Milikarjiun Bhava-\nnappa  Thirumale,  [1960] 1 S.C.R. 890 and  Sidhrainappa  v.\nCommissioner  of Income-tax, Bombay, 21 T.I.R. 333  referred\nto\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1170  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom  the judgement and order dated February  3,  6,
\n1967 of the Bombay High Court in Misc.\tPetition No. 104  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
S.Mitra\t J. Ramamurthi, R. N. Sachthey and B.  D.  Sharma
\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Chagla, N.A. Palkhivala, Bhuvanesh Kumari, J.  B.
\nDadachanji  and\t Ravinder Narain for  the  respondent.\t The
\nJudgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde,\tJ.-This\t appeal\t by  certificate  arises  from\t the
\ndecision of the High Court of Bombay in Misc.  Petition\t No.
\n104 of 1968 on its file.  That was a petition under Art. 226
\nof the Constitution.  Therein the respondents challenged the
\nvalidity of the orders of rectification made by the  Income-
\ntax  Officer, Company Circle, Bombay in the  assessments  of
\nthe  respondents for the assessment years 1958-59,  1960-61,
\n1961-62\t and  1962-63 under S. 154 of  the  Income-tax\tAct,
\n1961.\tRespondents  Nos. 2 and 3 are the  partners  in\t the
\nfirst  respondent-firm.\t The first respondent-firm was\tduly
\nregistered  under the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 as well  as
\nunder  the Income-tax Act 1961. In the original\t assessments
\nof  the firm for the concerned assessment years\t assessments
\nwere made on the salb rates prescribed under the  respective
\nFinance\t Acts  applicable  to  registered  Firms.   In\t the
\nindividual assessments of the partners for their  respective
\nshare in the income of the firm was included and assessed at
\nthe  maximum rates since their assessments were made in\t the
\nstatus\tof non-resident.  On February, 11, 1965,  the  first
\nrespondent  firm was served with notices dated\tJanuary\t 29,
\n1965 by the Income-tax Officer intimating to it that in\t its
\nassessments  for  the assessment years\t1958-59,  1960-61  ,
\n1961-62\t and 1962-63, there are mistakes apparent  from\t the
\nrecord inasmuch as the firm
\n32<\/span>
\nhad  not  been charged at the maximum  rates  of  income-tax
\nunder  S.  17(1)  of the Indian\t Income-tax  Act,  1922\t and
\ntherefore he proposes to rectify those assessments under  S.
\n154  of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  The respondents in  their
\nreply  to  those notices denied that there was\tany  mistake
\napparent  or otherwise in those orders of assessment.\tThey
\ndisputed  the  Income-tax Officer’s authority  to  make\t any
\ncorrection.   The  Income-tax  Officer did  not\t accept\t the
\ncontention of the respondents and assessed them by  applying
\nthe provisions of S. 17(i) of the 1922 Act.  The respondents
\nchallenged  the\t validity  of  the  orders  rectifying\t the
\nassessments,  before the High Court of Bombay  as  mentioned
\nearlier.   The\tHigh Court took the view that  the  original
\nassessments  made  on the respondents were  prima  facie  in
\naccordance with law and at any rate as there was no  obvious
\nor patent mistake in those orders of assessment, the Income-
\ntax Officer was incompetent to pass the impugned orders.
\nThe first question that we have to decide is whether oil the
\nfacts and in the circumstances of the ‘case.  The Income-tax
\nOfficer\t was  within  his ‘powers  in  making  the  impugned
\nrectifications.\t  He purported to make those  rectifications
\nunder  s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  That section  to
\nthe extent material for our present purpose reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “154 (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake
\n\t      apparent from the record\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the\t Income-tax  Officer may  amend\t any
\n\t      order of assessment or of refund or any  other
\n\t      order passed by him:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  corresponding  section in the Indian  Income-tax Act,
\n1922 is S. 35.\n<\/p>\n
We  have  now  to see whether  the  Income-tax\tOfficer\t was
\njustified  in  opining that in the original orders  of\tass-
\nessment, there was any apparent mistake.  As seen earlier in
\nthe  original  assessments  of the  firm  for  the  relevant
\nassessment  years, the Income-tax Officer adopted  the\tslab
\nrates  applicable  to registered firms.\t  The  question\t for
\ndecision is whether the first respondent’s firm
\n33<\/span>
\ncame within the mischief of S. 17(1) of the Indian  Income–
\ntax Act, 1922.\tSection 17(1) reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where a person is not resident in the taxable
\n\t      territories  and\tis not a company,  the\ttax,
\n\t      including super-tax, payable by him or on\t his
\n\t      behalf on his total in come shall be an amount
\n\t      equal to\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the income-tax which would be payable on
\n\t      his total income at the maximum rate, plus\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   either.  the  super-tax which  would  be
\n\t      payable  on  his total income at the  rate  of
\n\t      nineteen\tper  cent, or  the  super-tax  which
\n\t      would  be\t payable on his total income  if  it
\n\t      were the total income of a person resident  in
\n\t      the    taxable   territories   whichever\t  is
\n\t      greater….”. (Provision to the section is not
\n\t      relevant for our present purpose).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 17(1)\tcan  apply to a\t “person”.   The  expression
\n“Person” is defined in s. 2(9) of the Indian Income-tax Act,
\n1922 thus:\n<\/p>\n
”  “Person”  includes a Hindu undivided family and  a  local
\nauthority”.\n<\/p>\n
Unless\ta  firm can be considered as a\t“Person”,  S.  17(1)
\ncannot govern the assessment of the first respondent. In the
\nIncome-tax  Act,  1961 [S. 2(31)].,  the  expression  person
\nis defined differently.\t That definition reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “person” includes-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  an individual,\n<\/p>\n
(ii) a Hindu undivided family,\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  a company,\n<\/p>\n
(iv) a firm,\n<\/p>\n
(v)  an\t association  of persons or a body  of\tindividuals,
\nwhether incorporated or not,\n<\/p>\n
 (vi)\t  a local authority and
\n34<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\t  every\t artificial juridicial person,\tnot  falling
\nwithin any of the preceding sub clauses.,
\nIt  is\ta matter for consideration  whether  the  definition
\ncontained  in  S. 2(31) of the Income-tax Act,\t1961  is  an
\n,amendment  of the law or is merely declaratory of  the\t law
\nthat  was  in  force,  earlier.\t  To  pronounce\t upon\tthis
\nquestion, it may be necessary to examine various  provisions
\nin the Act as well as its scheme.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponded to  S.
\n17(1)  of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 but  that  section
\nhas  now  been omitted with effect from April 1, 1965  as  a
\nresult of the Finance Act, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
From what has been said above, it is clear that the question
\nwhether\t S.  17(1) of the Indian Income-tax  Act,  1922\t was
\napplicable  to the case of the first respondent is not\tfree
\nfrom  doubt.   Therefore  the  Income-tax  Officer  was\t not
\njustified in thinking that on that question there can be  no
\ntwo opinions.  It was not open to the Income-tax Officer  to
\ngo into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act
\nin a proceeding under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  A
\nmistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent
\nmistake\t and  not ,something which can be established  by  a
\nlong drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may
\nconceivably  be\t two opinions.\tAs seen\t earlier,  the\tHigh
\nCourt of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in
\naccordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was
\nnot justified in going into that question.  In\tSatyanarayan
\nLaxminarayan  Hegde  and  ors.\tv.  Millikarjun\t  Bhavanappa
\nTirumale<\/a>(1)  this Court while Spelling out the scope of\t the
\npower  of  a High Court under Art. 226 of  the\tConstitution
\nruled  that an error which has to be established by  a\tlong
\ndrawn  process\tof  reasoning on  points where\tthere  may
\nconceivably  be two opinions cannot be said to be  an  error
\napparent  on  the  face\t of the record.\t  A  decision  on  a
\ndebatable  point of law is not a mistake apparent  from\t the
\nrecord-see  Sidhamappa\tv..  Commissioner-  of\t Income-tax,
\nBombay(2).  The power of the officers mentioned in S. 154 of
\nthe  Income-tax Act, 1961 to correct “any  mistake  apparent
\nfrom the record” is
\n(1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 890.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 21 I.T.R. 333.\n<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
undoubtedly  not  more\tthan  that  of\tthe  High  Court  to
\nentertain a writ petition on the basis of an “error apparent
\non  the\t face  of  the record”.\t In  this  case\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary  for us to spell out the distinction\tbetween\t the
\nexpressions 66 error apparent on the face of the record” and
\n“mistake  apparent from the record”.  But suffice it to\t say
\nthat  the  Income tax Officer was wholly wrong\tin  holding
\nthat  there  was a mistake apparent from the record  of\t the
\nassessments of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons mentioned above we dismiss this appeal\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n36<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India T. S. Balaram, Income Tax … vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2204, 1972 SCR (1) 30 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: T. S. BALARAM, INCOME TAX OFFICER,COMPANY CIRCLE IV, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. VOLKART BROTHERS, BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/08\/1971 BENCH: HEGDE, […]<\/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-214303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nT. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971 - 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\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-30T05:36:09+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\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax … vs M\\\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T05:36:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1320,\"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\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971\",\"name\":\"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M\\\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T05:36:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax … vs M\\\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971 - 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\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-30T05:36:09+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\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax … vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971","datePublished":"1971-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T05:36:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971"},"wordCount":1320,"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\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971","name":"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T05:36:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-s-balaram-income-tax-vs-ms-volkart-brothers-bombay-on-5-august-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. S. Balaram, Income Tax … vs M\/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971"}]},{"@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\/214303","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=214303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}