{"id":28281,"date":"1970-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970"},"modified":"2017-10-13T08:47:51","modified_gmt":"2017-10-13T03:17:51","slug":"central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970","title":{"rendered":"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court<\/div>\n
Central Calcutta Investment (P.) … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 82 ITR 480 Cal<\/div>\n
Author: K Roy<\/div>\n
Bench: S P Mitra, K Roy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  K.L. Roy, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. By this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court :\n<\/p>\n
  “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in confirming the order made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1959-60 ?”\n<\/p>\n
 2. The facts leading to this reference are shortly as follows : The assessee is a private limited company and is admittedly a company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 23A(9) of the Act. For the assessment year 1959-60, for which the previous year was the financial year ending on the 31st March, 1959, the profits according to the assessee’s books of account amounted to Rs. 17,269. After providing for liability for taxation of Rs. 8,537 there was a balance of Rs. 8,732. But in the assessment for that year the assessee was assessed to a total income of Rs. 27,742 on which the tax payable was Rs. 14,383 leaving a balance of Rs. 13,359. At its general meeting held on the 29th September, 1959, the assessee-company declared a dividend of Rs. 1,900 only. By an order dated the I2th October, 1960, made under Section 23A of the Act, the Income-tax Officer directed the assessee to pay super-tax on 50 per cent. of the undistributed balance of Rs. 11,459. Before the Income-tax Officer, it was contended by the assessee that a larger dividend could not be declared in this year on account of outstanding income-tax demands. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that under Section 23A, the only considerations to be applied when the declaration of dividends was less than the statutory percentage of the distributable surplus were :\n<\/p>\n
 (i)    losses incurred by the company in earlier years,  and  \n \n\n (ii)   smallness of profit made in the previous year.   \n \n\n 3. As none of these grounds were advanced for failure to declare the statutory percentage of, the distributable surplus the Income-tax Officer made his order under Section 23A. \n \n\n 4. The assessee's appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was rejected as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the reasons given by the Income-tax Officer in his order. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 5. The assessee’s further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also proved unsuccessful. In its order the Tribunal recorded that between January, 1958, and September, 1959, before the date of its general meeting, the assessee had received tax demands aggregating to Rs, 44,259 for the six assessment years from 1953-54 to 1958-59, and that is why the assessee did not consider it proper to declare a higher dividend. According to the Tribunal this argument was unavailing :\n<\/p>\n
  “After the amendment of Section 23A(1)   by Section 15 of the  Finance Act, 1955, a private company,  like the  assessee,  which has not  distributed the requisite   percentage   of dividends can  avoid   an action   being   taken against it under Section 23A(1) by showing that there were  ‘losses incurred by the company in  earlier   years’ and   that due   to ‘the smallness of the profit   made   in   the previous   year’   payment   of   dividend   or   a   larger dividend is  unreasonable.   Admittedly,  there were  no  losses  incurred  by the  assessee in the earlier  years;  the  assessee relies  on the other  factor, namely, the smallness of the  profit made  in the  previous year’.    It  would be obvious that under Section 23A as amended  by Section 15 of the  Finance Act, 1955, ‘the smallness of  profit’   has to be  considered  only in  relation to the previous year….. .It is manifest,  therefore, that in  consideration of the smallness or otherwise of  the profit  made in the  previous year,  the tax liability of the assessee outstanding from earlier  years is not to  be  taken into consideration ……. However, as we  have already said, the  scope of section 23A(1) has been circumscribed by the amendment for the year 1955, and the smallness or adequacy of the profit will have to be judged only with reference to the previous year under consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
 6. The Tribunal also recorded that, as pointed out by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, “If the outstanding liabilities were to be considered the profits made by the assessee in the corresponding years would also have to be considered, and if this was done, the assessee would be still left with a surplus”. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 7. On the assessee’s application under Section 66(1) the questions stated
\nabove have been referred to this court.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel for the assessee, appearing in support of the reference, drew our attention to the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd., [1968] 69 I.T.R. 812, 815 (Cal.), to which I was a party, and where, at page 815, it was said :\n<\/p>\n
  “Since the decision of the Tribunal, the Supreme Court had to interpret the words ‘losses incurred by the company in earlier years or the smallness of profit made’, occurring in Section 23A before its amendment in 1953. As the section, both before, and after the aforesaid amendment requires the Income-tax Officer to be satisfied that having regard to the losses incurred by the company in earlier years or to the smallness of the profit made in the previous year, the payment of a dividend or a larger dividend than that declared would be unreasonable before applying the provisions of that section ; the amendment made in 1953 is not material so far as the question with which we are concerned and the observations of the Supreme Court would be equally applicable to the case of the assessee.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. The decision of the Supreme Court referred to in the above judgment is in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Company Ltd., . In that case the Supreme Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
  “This   section   was   introduced  to prevent   exploitation   of   juristic personality of a private company by the  members thereof  for   the purpose of  evading   higher taxation.   To   act   under this   section  the Income-tax Officer has   to be  satisfied   that   dividends   distributed   by the company during the prescribed period are  less than  the statutory percentage,   i. e., 60  per  cent.  of the  assessable income of the company of the previous year less the amount of income-tax and super-tax   payable   by   the company   in respect thereof.   Unless there  is  a  deficiency in the statutory percentage, the  Income-tax   Officer   has   no   jurisdiction   to take further action thereunder.    If that   condition   is   complied   with,   he   shall   make   an order declaring that  the  undistributed portion of the assessable  income less the said taxes shall be deemed to have been  distributed  as dividends   amongst the   shareholders.    But   before   doing  so,   a duty is cast on him to satisfy himself   that,   having   regard   to   the   losses   incurred by the company in earlier years    or   the   smallness of   the   profit   made the   payment of a dividend or a larger dividend than that declared would be reasonable……\n<\/p>\n
 He (Income-tax Officer) only does what the directors should have done. He puts himself in the place of the directors. Though the object of the section is to prevent evasion of tax, the provision must be worked not from the standpoint of the collector but from that of a businessman. The yardstick is that of a prudent businessman. The reasonableness or the unreasonableness of the amount distributed as dividends is judged by business considerations, such as the previous losses, the present profits, the availability of surplus money and the reasonable requirements of the future and similar others. He must take an overall picture of the financial position of the business. It is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any decisive tests for the guidance of the Income-tax Officer. It depends upon the facts of each case. The only guidance is his capacity to put himself in the position of a prudent businessman or the director of a company and his sympathetic and objective approach to the difficult problem that arises in each case.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. The material words used in Section 23A(1). before its amendment in 1955 were “unless he is satisfied that having regard to the losses incurred by the company in earlier years or to the smallness of the profits made. . .” while the corresponding words used after the amendment are–“unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the losses incurred by the company in earlier years or to the smallness of the profits made in the previous year”.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Emphasis has been laid by the Tribunal on the introduction of the words “made in the previous year” in the amended section. As has been pointed out in the decision of this court already cited, there is hardly any distinction between the provisions of the two sections before and after the amendment. So far as the conditions governing the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer as to the adequacy of the dividends distributed under Section 23A, the Tribunal was obviously not correct In saying that in considering the smallness of the profits made in the previous year the tax liability of the assessee outstanding from the earlier years was not to be taken into consideration. Such outstanding liability must be taken into consideration to determine the availability of surplus money for the purpose of declaring a dividend which is one of the facts which the Income-tax Officer is required to take into consideration under the directions given by the Supreme Court in Gangadhar Banerjee’s case. It is, therefore, not quite correct to say that in considering the adequacy of dividends declared by a company in which the public are not substantially interested, under Section 23A the only factors to be taken into consideration are : (I) the smallness of profits in the previous year and the losses incurred by the company in earlier years. Other factors which a prudent businessman must also take into consideration before considering the feasibility of declaring a dividend or a higher dividend must also be taken into considertion. As the Tribunal has also said that even if the outstanding liabilities were to be considered the profits made by the assessee in the corresponding years, if taken into consideration, might still leave a surplus, these facts would have to be investigated to find out whether the assessee was justified in not declaring a higher dividend than that declared. That would be a matter for the Tribunal to decide under Section 66(5) of the Act. It would be open to the Tribunal to decide: (a) as to whether there were in fact, outstanding liabilities for taxation and (b) whether such liabilities should be taken into consideration in determining the distributable surplus available in the year under consideration.\n<\/p>\n
 12. For the reasons stated above the answer to the question referred to us must be in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.\n<\/p>\n
  Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.\n<\/p>\n
 13. I agree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court Central Calcutta Investment (P.) … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 82 ITR 480 Cal Author: K Roy Bench: S P Mitra, K Roy JUDGMENT K.L. Roy, J. 1. By this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal has referred the following […]<\/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":[22,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-calcutta-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCentral Calcutta Investment (P.) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970 - 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\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-13T03:17:51+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\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-13T03:17:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970\"},\"wordCount\":1747,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Calcutta High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970\",\"name\":\"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-13T03:17:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970 - 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\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-13T03:17:51+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\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970","datePublished":"1970-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-13T03:17:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970"},"wordCount":1747,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Calcutta High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970","name":"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-13T03:17:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-calcutta-investment-p-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-18-december-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central Calcutta Investment (P.) … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 December, 1970"}]},{"@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\/28281","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=28281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}