{"id":271380,"date":"1953-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953"},"modified":"2018-02-26T00:32:10","modified_gmt":"2018-02-25T19:02:10","slug":"commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West … vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West … vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 455, 1954 SCR 171<\/div>\n
Author: M C Mahajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA. W. FIGGIES & CO., AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/09\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  455\t\t  1954 SCR  171\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1956 SC 354\t (15)\n RF\t    1967 SC 617\t (40,41)\n D\t    1974 SC1026\t (15)\n R\t    1979 SC 379\t (5)\n RF\t    1982 SC1085\t (9)\n F\t    1985 SC1143\t (4,8)\n RF\t    1986 SC 376\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\n Income-tax  Act<\/a>  (XI of 1922), s. 25(4)<\/a>-Firm paying  tax  in\n 1918 -Conversion to limited company in 1947-Right to  relief\n under s.  25(4)<\/a>-Change\t in  personnel of firm\tin  1939  and\n 1947, effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nFor  purposes  of  assessment to income-tax,  a\t firm  is  a\ndifferent  entity  distinct from its partners,\tand  a\tmere\nchange\tin the constitution of the firm does not bring\tinto\nexistence  a  new assessable unit or a\tdistinct  assessable\nentity.\n(1)  67 I.A. 464,481.\n172\nA firm consisting of three partners, A, B and C, carried  on\nthe  business of tea brokers and paid income-tax  under\t the\nIncome-tax  Act<\/a> of 1918.  There were several changes in\t the\npersonnel of the partners and in 1939 the firm consisted  of\nC, D and E. C retired and in 1945 a new partnership deed was\nwritten\t up  between  D, E and F and  they  carried  on\t the\nbusiness.   In\t1947 the partnership was  converted  into  a\nlimited company.  The Income-tax authorities refused to give\nrelief under s. 25(4)<\/a> of the Income-tax Act as the  partners\nof the firm in 1939 were different from the partners of\t the\nfirm in 1947:\nHeld,  that in spite of the changes in the  constitution  of\nthe firm, the business of the firm as originally constituted\ncontinued  right  from\tits inception to  the  time  it\t was\nsucceeded  by the limited company and the firm was the\tsame\nunit all through; the reconstitution of the firm in 1945 did\nnot  make  it a different unit, and the firm  was  therefore\nentitled to relief under s. 25(4)<\/a> of the Act.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1952.
\nAppeal\tfrom the Judgment and Order dated the  9th  January,
\n1951,  of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta  (Harries
\nC. J. and Banerjee J.) in its Special Jurisdiction  (Income-
\ntax) in Income-tax Reference No. 70 of 1950.
\nC.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus A.\t  Mehta,
\nwith him) for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C. Chatterjee (B.\tSen, with him) for the respondents.
\n1953.\tSeptember  24.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\nMAHAJAN\t J.-This  is an appeal from a judgment of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Judicature at Calcutta delivered in\ta  reference
\nunder section 66(1) of the Indian Incometax Act, whereby the
\nHigh   Court   answered\t the  question\t referred   in\t the
\naffirmative.\n<\/p>\n
The assessee is a partnership concern.\tWhen income-tax\t was
\npaid  under  the  Act  of  1918,  the  partnership   concern
\nconsisted  of three partners, Mathews, Figgies\tand  Notley.
\nThe  name  of  the firm was A. W. Figgies &  Co.,  and\tits’
\nbusiness  was  that  of tea  brokers.\tThere  were  several
\nchanges\t in  the  constitution of the firm  resulting  in  a
\nchange in the shares of
\n\t\t\t    173<\/span>
\nthe  partners.\tIn 1924, Mathews went out and his share\t was
\ntaken  over by Figgies and Notley.  In 1926 another  partner
\nSquire\twas introduced.\t In 1932 Figgies went out, and\tfrom
\n1932  to 1939 the partnership consisted only of\t Notley\t and
\nSquire.\t In 1939 Hillman was brought in and the\t partnership
\nconsisted  of these three partners. In 1943 Notley went\t out
\nand  the  partnership  business was carried on\tby  the\t two
\npartners,  Squire and Hillman.\tIn 1945 Gilbert was  brought
\nin.   This arrangement continued up to 31st May, 1947,\twhen
\nthe partnership was converted into a limited company.
\nFor  the assessment year 1947 -48 the assessee claimed\tthat
\nit was entitled to relief under section 25(4)<\/a> of the Act  as
\nthe partnership firm had been succeeded by a private limited
\ncompany.   There was a provision in the partnership deed  of
\n1939  that on the retirement of any partner the\t partnership
\nwould  not  be\tdetermined but would be carried\t on  by\t the
\nremaining  partners.   It appears that a  fresh\t partnership
\ndeed was drawn up in the year 1945 when Gilbert was  brought
\nin.   The  partnership constituted by these  three  partners
\ncontinued  to  carry  on the same  business  that  had\tbeen
\nstarted\t when the tax was paid under the Act of 1918.\tFrom
\nthe statement of the case it does not appear that apart from
\nthe  mere  change in the personnel of the  partners  and  in
\ntheir respective shares there was any actual dissolution  of
\nthe firm, and any division of its assets and liabilities  or
\na succession to its business by any outside person.
\nThe Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the  assessee
\non  the ground that the partners of the firm in\t 1939  being
\ndifferent  from the partners of the firm in 1947, no  relief
\ncould  be given to the applicant.  The\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner upheld this view.\tOn appeal to the  Income-tax
\nTribunal, this decision was reversed and relief was  granted
\nto  the applicant under section 25(4)<\/a>.\tBefore the  Tribunal
\nit  was\t argued\t on  behalf of\tthe  Commissioner  that\t the
\npartnership  was nothing but an association of\tpersons\t and
\ntherefore, in 24
\n174<\/span>
\norder  to  get\trelief under section 25(4)<\/a> of  the  Act\t the
\npartners  of 1939 must be the same as the partners  of\t1947
\nwhen  the firm was succeeded by the company.   The  Tribunal
\nrepelled   this\t  contention  and  held\t that\tthe   relief
\ncontemplated  by section 25(4)<\/a> of the Income-tax Act was  to
\nbe given to the business and not to the persons carrying  on
\nthe  business and that mere changes in the  constitution  of
\nthe firm had to be ignored.  It was not disputed before\t the
\nTribunal that the business of the partnership firm of A.  W.
\nFiggies\t &  Co.\t continued as tea  brokers  right  from\t its
\ninception  till\t the time it was succeeded  by\tthe  limited
\ncompany.   The Tribunal took the view that for\tpurposes  of
\nincometax  the firm was to be regarded as having a  separate
\njuristic  existence apart from the partners carrying on\t the
\nbusiness and that the firm could be carried on even if there
\nwas a change in its constitution.\n<\/p>\n
At the instance of the appellant the Tribunal stated a\tcase
\nand referred the following question to the High Court  under
\nsection 66(1)<\/a> of the Act :\n<\/p>\n
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the firm as
\nconstituted on 31st May, 1947, entitled to the relief  under
\nsection 25(4) of the Indian Incometax Act ?”
\nThe  High  Court  answered  the\t question  referred  in\t the
\naffirmative.  It upheld the view taken by the Tribunal.
\nIt  was contended before us that the construction placed  by
\nthe  High Court upon section 25(4)<\/a> of the Act was  erroneous
\nand  was  not warranted by the language of the\tsection\t and
\nthat by reason of the change in the composition of the\tfirm
\nthe  same firm did not continue throughout and\thence  there
\nwas no right to relief under section 25(4)<\/a> of the Act in the
\nchanged\t firm.\tIn our opinion, this contention\t is  without
\nforce.\tSection 25<\/a> (4)\t is in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
“Where the person who was at the commencement of the  Indian
\nIncome-tax (Amendment) Act<\/a>, 1939, carrying on any  business,
\nprofession or vocation on which tax was at any time  charged
\nunder the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act<\/a>, 1918,  is
\nsucceeded in such capacity by another person, the change not
\nbeing
\n\t\t\t    175<\/span>
\nmerely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax
\nshall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of
\nthe income, profits and gains of the period between the\t end
\nof  the previous year and the date of such  succession,\t and
\nsuch  person may further claim that the income, profits\t and
\ngains of the previous year shall be deemed to have been\t the
\nincome,\t profits  and gains of the said period.\t  Where\t any
\nsuch claim is made, an assessment shall be made on the basis
\nof the income, profits and gains of the said period, and, if
\nan  amount  of tax has already been paid in respect  of\t the
\nincome, profits and gains of the previous year exceeding the
\namount\tpayable\t on the basis of such assessment,  a  refund
\nshall be given of the difference.”\n<\/p>\n
The  section does not regard a mere change in the  personnel
\nof  the partners as amounting to succession  and  disregards
\nsuch  a\t change.   It follows from  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nsection\t that  a  mere change in  the  constitution  of\t the
\npartnership does not necessarily bring into existence a\t new
\nassessable unit or a distinct assessable entity and in\tsuch
\na case there is no devolution of the business as a whole.
\nIt  is true that under the law of partnership a firm has  no
\nlegal  existence apart from its partners and it is merely  a
\ncompendious  name  to describe its partners but it  is\talso
\nequally true that under that law there is no dissolution  of
\nthe  firm by the mere incoming or outgoing of  partners.   A
\npartner\t can retire with the consent of the  other  partners
\nand  a\tperson can be introduced in the partnership  by\t the
\nconsent\t of the other partners.\t The reconstituted firm\t can
\ncarry  on  its\tbusiness  in  the  same\t firm’s\t name\ttill
\ndissolution.   The law with respect to retiring partners  as
\nenacted\t in  the Partnership Act<\/a> is to a  certain  extent  a
\ncompromise between the strict doctrine of English common law
\nwhich  refuses to see anything in the firm but a  collective
\nname for individuals carrying on business in partnership and
\nthe mercantile usage which recognizes the firm as a distinct
\nperson\tor quasi corporation.  But under the Income-tax\t Act<\/a>
\nthe  position is somewhat different.  A firm can be  charged
\nas a distinct assessable entity as distinct from its
\n176<\/span>
\npartners  who can also be assessed individually.  Section  3<\/a>
\nwhich  is the charging section is in these terms:
\n Where\tany  Central  Act<\/a> enacts that  income-tax  shall  be
\ncharged\t for any year at any rate or rates tax at that\trate
\nor those rates shall be charged for that year in  accordance
\nwith, and subject to the provisions of, this Act in  respect
\nof   the  total\t income\t of  the  previous  year  of   every
\nindividual,  Hindu  undivided  family,\tcompany\t and   local
\nauthority,  and\t of  every firm\t and  other  association  of
\npersons\t or the partners of the firm or the members  of\t the
\nassociation individually.”\n<\/p>\n
The  partners of the firm are distinct assessable  entities,
\nwhile  the firm as such is a separate and distinct unit\t for
\npurposes  of assessment.  Sections 26<\/a>, 48<\/a> and 55<\/a> of the\t Act
\nfully  bear out this position.\tThese provisions of the\t Act
\ngo  to\tshow  that the technical view of  the  nature  of  a
\npartnership under English law or Indian law cannot be  taken
\nin  applying  the law of incometax.  The  true\tquestion  to
\ndecide\tis  one of identity of the unit assessed  under\t the
\nIncome-tax  Act<\/a>,  1918, which paid double tax  in  the\tyear
\n1939,  with the unit to whose business the  private  limited
\ncompany\t succeeded in the year 1947.  We have no doubt\tthat
\nthe  Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding\tthat
\nin  spite  of the mere changes in the  constitution  of\t the
\nfirm,  the  business of the firm as  originally\t constituted
\ncontinued  as tea brokers right from its inception till\t the
\ntime it was succeeded by the limited company and that it was
\nthe same unit all through, carrying on the same business, at
\nthe  same place and there was no cesser of that business  or
\nany change in the unit.\t Reference was made by Mr.  Daphtary
\nto  the\t partnership deed drawn up in 1945.  It\t was  argued
\nthat a different firm was then constituted.  The High  Court
\nrefused to look into this document as it had not been relied
\nupon   before  the  Tribunal  and  no  reference  bad\tbeen
\nspecifically  made  to\tit in the  order  of  the  Incometax
\nOfficer\t or  the Assistant Commissioner.   The\tTribunal  in
\nspite  of  this\t document  took\t the  view  that  under\t the
\nPartnership Act<\/a> a firm could be carried on even if there was
\na change in its constitution.  This
\n\t\t\t    177<\/span>
\ndocument  is silent on the -question as to what happened  to
\nthe assets and liabilities of the firm that was, constituted
\nunder  the  deed of 1939.  To all intents and  purposes\t the
\nfirm  as  reconstituted\t was not a  different  unit  but  it
\nremained  the  same  unit  in spite of\tthe  change  in\t its
\nconstitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  result  is\t that  we see  no  substantial\tgrounds\t for
\ndisturbing  the\t opinion  given by the\tHigh  Court  on\t the
\nquestion submitted to it.  The appeal therefore fails and is
\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.
\n Agent for the respondents: P. K. Chatterjee.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West … vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 455, 1954 SCR 171 Author: M C Mahajan Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL Vs. RESPONDENT: A. W. FIGGIES & CO., AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/09\/1953 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-271380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953\" \/>\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,West ... vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953\" \/>\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=\"1953-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-25T19:02:10+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\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West … vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T19:02:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953\"},\"wordCount\":1795,\"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-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T19:02:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West … vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953\"}]},{\"@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,West ... vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-25T19:02:10+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\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West … vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953","datePublished":"1953-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T19:02:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953"},"wordCount":1795,"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-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T19:02:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxwest-vs-a-w-figgies-co-and-others-on-24-september-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West … vs A. W. Figgies & Co., And Others on 24 September, 1953"}]},{"@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\/271380","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=271380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271380\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}