{"id":220947,"date":"1965-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965"},"modified":"2016-03-29T18:37:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-29T13:07:56","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., &#8230; on 3 December, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., &#8230; on 3 December, 1965<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1117, \t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 859<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDHARAMPUR LEATHER CLOTH CO.  LTD., BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/12\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1117\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 859\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1968 SC 579\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\t Income-tax  Act,  1922\t  s.   10(5)(b)-Depreciation\n'actually allowed'-Whether includes depreciation that  might\nhave been allowed if income had not been exempted.\nTaxation  Laws\t(Merged States)\t (Removal  of  Difficulties)\n(Amendment) Order, 1962--Company exempted by Ruler of Indian\nState from, taxation-After merger exemption given under para\n15  of\tMerged\tStates (Taxation  Concession)  Order,  1949-\nExemption  by  Commissioner whether a  continuation  of\t the\nargeement with the Ruler.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent company obtained under an agreement with\t the\nRuler of the erstwhile State of Dharampur an exemption\tfrom\nlevy  of income-tax and super-tax for the first seven  years\nof  its\t working. it commenced business in  June  1949.\t  In\nAugust 1949 the State of Dharampur merged with the  Province\nof Bombay.  The company then applied for and obtained  under\npara  15 of the Merged States (Taxation\t Concession)  Order,\n1949,  an exemption from income-tax and supper-tax for\tfive\nyears  commencing from April, 1950.  In the assessment\tyear\n1956-57 when the company was to be assessed under the Indian\nIncometax Act, 1922, for the first time, it claimed that  as\nno depreciation had actually been allowed to it earlier\t the\noriginal  cost of its machinery etc. should be taken as\t the\nwritten\t down  value  for the  purpose\tof  calculating\t the\nallowable   depreciation.   The\t assessing   and   appellate\nauthorities held against the company but the High Court held\nin  its favour.\t In appeal to this Court by the\t Revenue  it\nwas  contended\tthat (1) on a proper  interpretation  of  s.\n10(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 the depreciation\nmust be deemed to, have been allowed to the assessee in\t the\nyears  in  which  its  income  was  exempted  and  (2)\t the\nconcession given by the Commissioner must be deemed to be  a\ncontinuation  of the agreement with the Ruler and  therefore\nthe Taxation Laws (Merged States) (Removal of  difficulties)\nOrder  1949 as amended by the Taxation Laws (Merged  States)\n(Removal  of Difficulties) (Amendment Order,), 1962  applied\nto the facts of the case.\nHELD:  (i) The words 'actually allowed' in s.  10(5)(b)\t did\nnot  include any notional allowance and the High  Court\t had\nrightly decided that the original cost was the written\tdown\nvalue. [862 C]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/569125\/\">Commissioner  of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh v.\tM\/s.   Straw\nProducts Limited, Bhopal,<\/a> [1966] S.C.R. applied.\n(ii) The exemption granted to the company under para. 15  of\nthe  Merged States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1949 was  an\nexemption  under s. 60A of the Income-tax Act and not  under\nany agreement.\tThe case of the assessee had therefore to be\ndetermined  with  reference  to\t s.  10(5)(b)  of  the\t Act\nunaffected by the amendment made by the 1962 Order. [862 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 956 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">860<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nOctober\t 7,  9,\t 1961  of the  Bombay  High  Court  in\tI.T.<br \/>\nReference No. 6 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>A.   V.\t Viswanatha Sastri, Gopal Singh, B. R. G. K. A\tchar<br \/>\nand R.\t  N. Sachthey, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mahinder Narain, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and P. L.<br \/>\nVohra, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSikri,\tJ. This appeal by special leave is directed  against<br \/>\nthe  judgment  of  the High Court of  Judicature  at  Bombay<br \/>\nanswering the following question against the appellant :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Whether\tdepreciation  is  allowable  on\t the<br \/>\n\t      original cost of the various components of the<br \/>\n\t      Plant  and Machinery and other assets  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      company as acquired and used prior to 1-7-1953<br \/>\n\t      ?&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  relevant  facts are these.\t We are concerned  with\t the<br \/>\nassessment year 1955-56 (accounting year being April 1, 1954<br \/>\nto  March  31,\t1955).\tThe  respondent,  Dharampur  Leather<br \/>\nCompany\t Ltd.,\tBombay,\t hereinafter  referred\tto  as\t the<br \/>\nassessee  company, was incorporated on June 15, 1943,  as  a<br \/>\nprivate limited company, and later on November 24, 1949,  it<br \/>\nbecame\ta  public limited company.  On August 1,  1949,\t the<br \/>\nDharampur State merged with the Province of Bombay.   Before<br \/>\nits incorporation, the promoters of the assessee company had<br \/>\nnegotiated with the Ruler of Dharampur and secured from\t the<br \/>\nRuler  total exemption from the State Income Tax of  profits<br \/>\nof  the\t company  for  a period\t of  seven  years  from\t the<br \/>\ncommencement of its working.  The factory commenced  working<br \/>\nfrom  June 15, 1949.  After the merger the assessee  company<br \/>\napplied\t to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay,  by\t its<br \/>\nletter dated June 22, 1951, for relief under para 15 of\t the<br \/>\nMerged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949.  The\tCom-<br \/>\nmissioner  of  Income Tax communicated the decision  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment in his letter dated March 8, 1952, to exempt\t the<br \/>\ncompany\t from income tax and super tax for a period of\tfive<br \/>\nyears  with  effect from April 1, 1950.\t  It  was,  however,<br \/>\nstated that the shareholders of the company would be  liable<br \/>\nto pay tax on the amount of dividend received by them.<br \/>\nThe  Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order,  1949,\t was<br \/>\nissued\tby the Central Government in exercise of the  powers<br \/>\nconferred  by  S. 60A of the Indian Income  Tax\t Act,  1922,<br \/>\nhereinafter<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    861<\/span><br \/>\nreferred  to as the Act, and s. 23A of the Business  Profits<br \/>\nTax  Act,  1947.   Para 15 of the  said\t order\tprovides  as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;15(1)   Where  any   industrial\t undertaking<br \/>\n\t      situate  in a merged State claims that it\t has<br \/>\n\t      been granted any exemption from or  concession<br \/>\n\t      in respect of income-=, super-tax or  business<br \/>\n\t      profits  tax by the Ruler of the State  before<br \/>\n\t      the  1st day of August, 1949, it shall  submit<br \/>\n\t      an application to the Commissioner of  Income-<br \/>\n\t      tax giving the following particulars :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      1.    Name of the Industrial undertaking.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      2.    Status  (i.e. whether public or  private<br \/>\n\t      company,<br \/>\n\t      firm, individual or Hindu undivided family).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      3.    Nature of business.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      4.    Date of commencement of the business.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      5.    Nature of the concessions granted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      6.    Period for which concessions granted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      7.    Unexpired period of the concessions from<br \/>\n\t      the 1st day<br \/>\n\t      of August, 1949.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   The application shall be accompanied  by<br \/>\n\t      a copy of the orders of the State granting the<br \/>\n\t      concession or of the agreement with the State.<br \/>\n\t      (3)   The Commissioner shall, after  obtaining<br \/>\n\t      such  other  information as  he  may  require,<br \/>\n\t      forward\tthe  application  to   the   Central<br \/>\n\t      Government  which,  having regard to  all\t the<br \/>\n\t      circumstances  of\t the case,  may\t grant\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      relief, if any, as it thinks appropriate.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The assessee company contended before the Income Tax Officer<br \/>\nin the course of the assessment proceedings for the  assess-<br \/>\nment year 1955-56 that this being the first assessment\tyear<br \/>\nafter it commenced working as a factory, no depreciation had<br \/>\nin fact been actually allowed to the assessee in any earlier<br \/>\nassessment year, and, therefore, the depreciation should  be<br \/>\ncomputed on the original cost of the various items of  plant<br \/>\nand  machinery and other assets of the company.\t The  Income<br \/>\nTax Officer, however, rejected this contention and held that<br \/>\ndepreciation must be computed on the written-down values  of<br \/>\nmachinery computed as if the income of the assessee had been<br \/>\nworked\tout  properly  in the years  when  the\tcompany\t was<br \/>\nexempted  and  the depreciation being allowed at  the  usual<br \/>\nrates.\t The assessee failed before the Appellate  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner  and  the Appellate  Tribunal.   The  Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal  held\tthat  the words\t &#8220;actually  allowed&#8221;  in  s.<br \/>\n10(5)(b)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">862<\/span><br \/>\nof  the\t Act  were  wide enough to cover  the  case  of\t the<br \/>\nassessee.   The\t High Court, however, held that\t if  in\t the<br \/>\nprior  years no depreciation had been actually allowed\tthen<br \/>\nthe  actual cost incurred by the assessee for acquiring\t the<br \/>\nmachinery would be the written down value of the machinery.<br \/>\nMr.  Sastri,  the learned counsel for the  appellant,  first<br \/>\nurges  that on a proper interpretation of S. 10 (5)  (b)  of<br \/>\nthe  Act,  the\tdepreciation must be  deemed  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nallowed to the assessee in the years in which the income  of<br \/>\nthe  assessee company was ,exempted.  There is no  force  in<br \/>\nthis  contention.   We\thave  delivered\t judgment  today  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/569125\/\">Commissioner  of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Messrs  Straw<br \/>\nProducts Limited Bhopal<\/a>(1) and held that the words  &#8220;actually<br \/>\nallowed&#8221;  in  para 2 of the Taxation  Laws  (Merged  States)<br \/>\n(Removal  of Difficulties) Order, 1949, did not include\t any<br \/>\nnotional  allowance.   Following  that\tjudgment,  we\tmust<br \/>\ninterpret the words &#8216;actually allowed&#8217; occurring in s. 10(5)\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) of the Act in the same manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  Sastri  next contends that the  Taxation  Laws  (Merged<br \/>\nStates) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1949, as amended by<br \/>\nthe Taxation Laws (Merged States) (Removal of  Difficulties)<br \/>\n(Amendment)  Order,  1962, hereinafter referred to  as\t1962<br \/>\nOrder,\tapplies to the facts of the case.  He says that\t the<br \/>\nexemption  was ,originally given by the Ruler  of  Dharampur<br \/>\nState  under an agreement with the assessee company and\t the<br \/>\nconcession by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide his letter<br \/>\ndated  March  8,  1952, was in fact  a\tcontinuance  of\t the<br \/>\nagreement,  and therefore, this exemption must be deemed  to<br \/>\nhave been granted under an agreement with the Ruler,  within<br \/>\nthe meaning of 1962 Order.  We are unable to accede to\tthis<br \/>\ncontention.   In  our opinion, the Explanation\tinserted  by<br \/>\n1962  Order has no bearing on the facts of this ,case.\t The<br \/>\nexemption granted by the Central Government is granted under<br \/>\npara  15 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions)  Order,<br \/>\n1949, which was itself issued under s. 60A of the Act.\t The<br \/>\nresult\tis that the exemption was granted under the Act\t and<br \/>\nnot  under any agreement.  The case of the assessee must  be<br \/>\ndetermined  with  reference  to s. 10 (5) (b)  of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nunaffected by the amendment made by the 1962 Order.<br \/>\nIn  the result we agree with the High Court that the  answer<br \/>\nto  the question referred to should be in  the\taffirmative.<br \/>\nThe :appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  [1966] 2 S.C.R. 881.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">863<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., &#8230; on 3 December, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1117, 1966 SCR (2) 859 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: DHARAMPUR LEATHER CLOTH CO. LTD., BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/12\/1965 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., ... on 3 December, 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965\" \/>\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 Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., ... on 3 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-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=\"1965-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-29T13:07:56+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=\"8 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-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., &#8230; on 3 December, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T13:07:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965\"},\"wordCount\":1141,\"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-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., ... on 3 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T13:07:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., &#8230; on 3 December, 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":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., ... on 3 December, 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., ... on 3 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-29T13:07:56+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., &#8230; on 3 December, 1965","datePublished":"1965-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T13:07:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965"},"wordCount":1141,"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-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., ... on 3 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T13:07:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-dharampur-leather-cloth-co-ltd-on-3-december-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd., &#8230; on 3 December, 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\/220947","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=220947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}