{"id":39680,"date":"1966-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966"},"modified":"2018-12-12T17:21:50","modified_gmt":"2018-12-12T11:51:50","slug":"shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966","title":{"rendered":"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 September, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 September, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 444, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 392<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/09\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  444\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 392\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1971 SC2129\t (7)\n R\t    1972 SC  19\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s.  10(2)(xv)-Expenditure\nin  curred for proceedings to prevent enforcement  of  order\ninterfering with business-It admissible deduction.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  assessee-mill claimed deduction under s. 10(2) (xv)  of\nthe Indian Income-tax Act of the expenses incurred by it and\nthe  costs awarded to Government in respect of\tunsuccessful\nwrit  petition\tand appeals therefrom.\t The  deduction\t was\ndisallowed by the departmental authorities, and the question\nwas  answered against the assessee  by the High\t Court.\t  In\nappeals to this Court.\nHELD: The appeal must be allowed.\nThe  proceeding started by the assessee was in\trelation  to\nthe business of the assessee.\nExpenditure  incurred  to resist in a civil  proceeding\t the\nenforcement  of\t a measure-legislative or  executive,  which\nimposes restrictions on the carrying on of a business or  to\nobtain a declaration that the measure is invalid would..  if\nother conditions are satisfied, be admissible under s. 10(2)\n(xv)  as  a  permissible deduction  in\tthe  computation  of\ntaxable\t income,  even\tthough\tthe  expenditure  does\t not\ndirectly  relate to the earning of income.  Expenditure\t may\nnot  be\t denied\t admission as  a  permissible  deduction  in\ncomputing  the taxable income merely because the  proceeding\nhas  failed.  Persistence of the assessee in  launching\t the\nproceeding and carrying it from Court to Court and incurring\nexpenditure  for that purpose again cannot be a\t ground\t for\ndisallowing the claim. (396 B-C; 399 B)\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax, West Bengal v.  H.  Hirjee<\/a>  23\nI.T.R- 427, Morgan (Inspector of Taxes) v. Tate & Lyle\tLtd.\n26 I.T.R. 195 : 35 T.C. 367 and Commissioner of\t Income-tax,\nKerala v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.,<\/a> (196 HI 7 S.C.R.\t693,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 557 &\t 558
\nof 1965,
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nSeptember 19, 1962 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
\n(in Tax Case No. 87 of 1960).\n<\/p>\n
R.   Ganapathy lyer, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
R.   M. Hazarnavis and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J.-Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd.-a  company\tincorporated
\nunder the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at
\nMadurai carries on business of cotton spinning and  weaving.
\nIn  the\t premises “of the factory of the Company  there\t are
\ninstalled 80 handloorns
\n\t\t\t    393<\/span>
\nThese handlooms were found inadequate to weave the yarn pro-
\nduced  by  the factory and a part of the yarn  produced\t was
\ndistributed to weavers outside the factory who were  engaged
\nby the Company to weave the yarn into cloth.  Under cl. 18-B
\nof the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control), Order, 1945,  issued
\nby  the\t Government of India, the Textile  Commissioner\t was
\nauthorized  to\tdirect ally manufacturer or  dealer  or\t any
\nclass  of manufacturers or dealers, inter alia, not to\tsell
\nor deliver any yarn or cloth of specified description except
\nto such person or persons and subject to such conditions  as
\nthe Textile Commissioner may specify.  On February 7,  1946,
\nthe  Textile  Commissioner  issued an  order  directing\t the
\nCompany not to sell or deliver any yarn manufactured by\t the
\nCompany\t except\t to such person or persons  as\tthe  Textile
\nCommissioner may specify.  It was recited in the order\tthat
\n“nothing  in  this Order shall apply to a sale\tor  delivery
\nmade, in pursuance of clause 18-A of the said order, to\t any
\ndealer\tin  yarn not engaged in the production of  cloth  on
\nhandlooms or powerless”.  The Company addressed a letter  on
\nFebruary  13,  1946 to the Textile  Commissioner  submitting
\nthat  the prohibition in general terms was ultra  wires\t the
\nauthority  conferred by the Cotton Cloth and Yarn  (Control)
\nOrder.\t  The\tCompany\t  continued   notwithstanding\t the
\nprohibition  to\t deliver  yarn to weavers and  did  so\ttill
\nFebruary 20, 1946.  This yarn was seized under the orders of
\nthe   Textile  Commissioner.   On  February   20,1946,\t the
\nProvincial  Textile  Commissioner,  purporting\tto  act\t  in
\nexercise  of authority conferred upon him by a\tnotification
\nissued by the Government of India, issued an order addressed
\nto the Company that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “You should accordingly confine your  delivery
\n\t      to the categories of persons notified below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   Licensed  yarn  dealers  (in  accordance
\n\t      with the said 18-A of the Control Order).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   to consumers who purchased yarn directly
\n\t      from  you during the basic period 1940-42\t (in
\n\t      accordance  with my circular letter dated\t 4th
\n\t      January 1946 referred to above).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   your  handloom factory situated  in\t the
\n\t      premises\tof  your Mill at Madurai  (just\t the
\n\t      quantity of yam required).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Note:-Any other delivery of yarn by you which
\n\t      is   not\tcovered\t by  a\tspecial\t  order\t  or
\n\t      permission of the Textile Control\t Authorities
\n\t      will  accordingly\t be a contravention  of\t the
\n\t      Textile Commissioner’s order under clause 18-B
\n\t      referred to above.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
After this order was issued, the Company did not deliver any
\nyarn to weavers.\n<\/p>\n
On March 4, 1946 the Company filed a petition for a writ  of
\nnandamus  in  the High Court of Madras under s.\t 45  of\t the
\nSpecific
\n394<\/span>
\nRelief\tAct  praying for an order directing  the  Provincial
\nTextile Commissioner, Madras to desist from seizing the yarn
\nsupplied to the weavers at or around Madurai and Rajapalayam
\nfor  the  purpose of converting the yarn  belonging  to\t the
\nCompany\t into cloth; to restore to the Company or to  direct
\nthe Provincial Textile Commissioner and his subordinates  to
\nrestore the yam already seized; and to forbear from  seizing
\nor  to\tdirect the subordinates of  the\t Provincial  Textile
\nCommissioner  to forbear from seizing the yarn that  may  be
\nentrusted to the weavers by the Company in the -usual course
\nof business according to the practice already obtaining\t for
\nconversion into cloth.\tThis petition was dismissed by Kunhi
\nRaman, J, and the order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal
\nby the High Court.  The matter was then carried in appeal to
\nthe  Privy  Council.  The Judicial Committee  dismissed\t the
\nappeal\tfiled by the Company.  They held, agreeing with\t the
\nHigh  Court, that the expression “deliver” in cl. 18-B\tsub-
\ncl. 1(b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945,
\nis  used  in  its  ordinary  broad  sense  of  handing\tover
\npossession, as distinct from passing of property, and  would
\ninclude\t delivery of possession to a  bailer.\tAccordingly,
\ndelivery  of  part of its yarn by the Company to  owners  of
\nhandlooms  outside the mill premises for conversion  of\t the
\nyarn into cloth for the Company was in contravention of\t the
\norder  made under cl. 18-B sub. cl. (1) (b).   The  Judicial
\nCommittee  also\t held  that a petition under S.\t 45  of\t the
\nSpecific Relief Act, 1877, directing the Provincial  Textile
\nCommissioner to desist from seizing the yam supplied to\t the
\nweavers\t and  to  restore to the Company  the  yarn  already
\nseized\twas  incompetent  as the acts in  respect  of  which
\nrelief\twas asked for took place outside the limits  of\t the
\nordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.
\nThe  Company spent Rs. 20,035\/- in prosecuting the  proceed-
\nings under s. 45 of the Specific Relief Act and had also  to
\npay   Rs.  5,912\/-  as\tcosts  to  the\tGovernment  of\t the
\nunsuccessful  appeal  to  the Judicial\tCommittee.   In\t its
\nreturns\t of  income  the Company claimed  deduction  of\t the
\namounts\t of Rs. 20,035\/- and Rs., 5,9121\/for the  assessment
\nyears 1949-50 and 1950-51 respectively as being\t expenditure
\nwholly\tand  exclusively  laid out for the  purpose  of\t its
\nbusiness.   The\t claims were rejected  by  the\tdepartmental
\nauthorities, and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.\t The
\nTribunal  then referred the following question to  the\tHigh
\nCourt of Judicature at Madras :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether the expenses of Rs. 20,035\/- incurred
\n\t      in the assessment year 1949-50 and Rs. 5,912\/-
\n\t      (relating\t to  the assessment year  1950-5  1)
\n\t      being the cost paid to Government as  directed
\n\t      by the Privy Council were expenses incurred in
\n\t      the ordinary course of business and  allowable
\n\t      as deductions?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
395<\/span><\/p>\n
The question as framed is somewhat vague.  But it is  common
\nground\tthat  the Company claimed deduction under  s.  10(2)\n<\/p>\n
(xv) of the Indian Income-tax.Act, 1.922 on the footing that
\nthe two amounts represented expenditure laid out wholly and,
\nexclusively by the Company for the purpose of its  business.
\nThe High Court answered the question in the negative.  ‘With
\nspecial leave, the Company has appealed to this Court.
\nThe  Tribunal has found that after the order dated  February
\n20, 1946 was issued, the Company did not deliver yarn to any
\nweaver. it is recited in the judgment of the Tribunal that a
\n“correct  order\t by the proper authorities  was\t passed”  on
\nFebruary  20,  1946  and, thereafter  the  Company  did\t not
\ndistribute  any yarn to weavers.  The averments made by\t the
\nCompany\t in the petition under s. 45 of the Specific  Relief
\nAct,  are somewhat involved, but in substance the  claim  of
\nthe Company was that the Provincial Textile Commissioner was
\nincompetent to pass the order dated February 20, 1946  which
\nplaced\trestrictions on the business of the Company and\t the
\norder  was  “likely to cause irreparable  and  irretrievable
\ninjury”,  and it was prayed that an order do issue under  s.
\n45  of\tthe Specific Relief Act restraining  the  Provincial
\nTextile\t Commissioner  from  enforcing\tthe  order  and\t the
\nTextile Commissioner be prohibited by an order from  seizing
\nthe yarn delivered to the weavers outside the factory and be
\nfurther\t ordered  to restore the yarn  already\tseized.\t  No
\nclear  averment was made in the petition about the  date  on
\nwhich  the yarn seized had been delivered by the Company  to
\nthe weavers.\n<\/p>\n
This  petition\tfailed,\t because  the  High  Court  had\t  no
\njurisdiction to entertain the petition, and also because the
\nexpression  “deliver” used in cl. 18-B of the Control  Order
\nincluded  handing  over of yarn to the weavers\toutside\t the
\npremises  of  the factory for conversion  into\tcloth.\t But
\nexpenditure  incurred  in  prosecuting\ta  civil  proceeding
\nrelating  to  the business of an assessee is  admissible  as
\nexpenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the  purpose
\nof  the business even if the proceeding is  decided  against
\nthe assessee.  It was held by this Court in Commissioner  of
\nIncome-Tax,   West   Bengal  v.\t H.   Hirjee<\/a>(1)\t  that\t the
\ndeductibility of expenditure under s. 10(2) (xv) must depend
\non  the\t nature\t and  purpose of  the  legal  proceeding  in
\nrelation to the business whose profits are under computation
\nand  cannot  be\t affected  by the  final  outcome  of  that.
\nproceeding.   The proceeding started by the Company  was  in
\nrelation  to the business of the Company.  The\tCompany\t was
\nthereby seeking relief against interference by the executive
\nauthorities in the conduct of its business in the manner  in
\nwhich  it  was\tbeing carried on previously.   It  was\talso
\nseeking\t to  obtain an order for restoration  of  its  goods
\nwhich were seized.  It may be
\n(1) [1953] S.C.R. 714 : 23  I.T.R. 427.\n<\/p>\n
M15Sup CI\/66 12
\n396<\/span>
\ngranted\t that the Company was, in starting  the\t proceeding,
\nill-advised.\tHowever\t wrongheaded,  ill-advised,   unduly
\noptimistic, or overconfident in his conviction the  assessee
\nmay   appear  in  the  light  of  the\tultimate   decision,
\nexpenditure  in starting and prosecuting the proceeding\t may
\nnot  be\t denied\t admission as  a  permissible  deduction  in
\ncomputing the taxable income, merely because the  proceeding
\nhas failed, if otherwise the expenditure is laid out for the
\npurpose\t of  the  business  wholly  and\t exclusively,\ti.e.
\nreasonably and honestly incurred to promote the interest  of
\nthe business.  Persistence of the assessee in launching\t the
\nproceeding and carrying it from Court to Court and incurring
\nexpenditure  for that purpose again cannot be a\t ground\t for
\ndisallowing the claim.\n<\/p>\n
Under  s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act as  amended
\nby  Act\t 7  of 1939 expenditure\t even  though  not  directly
\nrelated to the earning of income may still be admissible  as
\na  deduction.  Expenditure on civil litigation commenced  or
\ncarried\t on  by an assessee for protecting the\tbusiness  is
\nadmissible  as\texpenditure under s.  10(2)  ((xv)  provided
\nother conditions are fulfilled, even though the\t expenditure
\ndoes not directly relate to the earning of income.  Expendi-
\nture  incurred\tnot  with a view  to  direct  and  immediate
\nbenefit for -purposes of commercial expediency and in  order
\nindirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business  is
\ntherefore  expenditure laid out wholly and  exclusively\t for
\nthe  purposes of the trade.  In Morgan (Inspector of  Taxes)
\nv.  Tate  &  Lyle  Ltd.(1) the\tHouse  of  Lords  held\tthat
\nexpenditure   incurred\tby  a  Company\tengaged\t in   :sugar
\nrefining, in a propaganda campaign to oppose the  threatened
\nnationalization\t of  the  industry  was\t a  sum\t wholly\t and
\nexclusively laid out for the purpose of the Company’s  trade
\nand was an admissible deduction from its profits for income-
\ntax  purposes.\t A’.  majority of the House  held  that\t the
\nobject\tof the expenditure being to preserve the  assets  of
\nthe  Company from seizure and -so to enable it to  carry  on
\nand   earn  profits,  the  expenditure\twas  a\t permissible
\ndeduction under r. 3(a) of the Rules applicable to cases (1)  &
\n(2) of Sch.  D of the Income-tax Act, 1918.\n<\/p>\n
The  object  of\t the petition filed by the  Company  was  to
\nsecure a declaration that the order dated February 20,\t1946
\ninsofar\t as it sought to put restrictions upon the right  of
\nthe Company to carry on its business in the manner in  which
\nit  was\t accustomed to do was unauthorized  and\t to  prevent
\nenforcement  of that order: thereby the Company was  seeking
\nto obtain an order from the Court ,enabling the business  to
\nbe carried on without interference.  Expenditure incurred in
\nthat  behalf  would without doubt be  expenditure  laid\t out
\nwholly\tand exclusively for the purpose of the\tbusiness  of
\nthe Company.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  26 I.T.R. 195 : 35 T.C. 367.\n<\/p>\n
397<\/span><\/p>\n
It was argued however that the any delivered by the  Company
\nto  the\t weavers  contrary to the  prohibitory\torder  dated
\nFebruary  20,  1946  was attached under\t the  order  of\t the
\nProvincial  Textile  Commissioner,  and\t since\tthe  Company
\nviolated  the prohibitory order, the primary object  of\t the
\npetition  for  mandamus\t instituted by the  Company  was  to
\nsecure protection against prosecution of the Company and  an
\norder for return of the goods in respect of which an offence
\nwas  committed.\t  Expenditure incurred,in  prosecuting\tthat
\nclaim was, it was said, not laid out wholly and\t exclusively
\nfor  the purpose of the business.  Reliance was placed\tupon
\nthe  judgment of this Court in H. Hirjee’s case(1) in  which
\nit was held that a person who was prosecuted for an  offence
\nunder  s.  13 of the Hoarding  and  Profiteering  Ordinance,
\n1943,  on a charge, of selling goods at prices\thigher\tthan
\nwere reasonable, in contravention of the provisions of s.  6
\nthereof, and a part of his stock was seized and taken  away,
\nwas  not entitled to claim deduction under S.  10(2)(xv)  of
\nthe  Income-tax\t Act  for the sums spent  in  defending\t the
\ncriminal  proceedings  against him because  the\t expenditure
\ncould not be said to have been laid out and expended  wholly
\nand  exclusively for the purpose of the business.   But\t the
\nassumption  underlying\tthe  argument  is  not\ttrue.\t The
\nTribunal  has  in  the statement of  the  case\tobserved  in
\nparagraph-2 :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Subsequently, on 20th February 1946, a proper
\n\t      order by the appropriate authority was  passed
\n\t      and it is common ground that after that  date,
\n\t      at  any rate no further distribution  of\tyarn
\n\t      was  made\t by the assessee.   In\tthe  interim
\n\t      (period)\tbetween 7th February 1946  and\t20th
\n\t      February 1946, the yarn which was\t distributed
\n\t      to  the  handloom weavers was the\t subject  of
\n\t      seizure by the provincial Textile Commissioner
\n\t      and  this\t the  assesse sought  to  resist  by
\n\t      filing an application under section 45 of\t the
\n\t      Specific Relief Act 1, of 1877
\nIn  the\t view of the Tribunal the Company did  -not  act  in
\nviolation of the terms of the order dated February 20, 1946;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
it cannot there fore be said that the Company was seeking to
\nprotect\t itself\t against  a  criminal  prosecution  and\t the
\nconsequences  arising from infringement of the\torder  dated
\nFebruary 20, 1946.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ttrue that in the judgment in appeal from  the  order
\nrefusing  mandamus,  Leach,  C.J.  speaking  for  the  Court
\nobserved:  (see Sree Meenakshi Mills v.\t Provincial  Textile
\nCommissioner, Madras(2):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  spite  of  the fact that  this  order  in
\n\t      effect  prohibited  the  appellant  delivering
\n\t      yarn  to owners of handlooms  situate  outside
\n\t      the mill premises, the appellant continued  to
\n\t      deliver yarn to such weavers.”, and
\n\t      (1)   [1953] S.C.R. 714 23 I.T.R. 427.
\n\t      (2) A.I.R. 1947 Mad. 82,
\n\t      398<\/span>
\n\t      the Judicial Committee observed:
\n\t      “Despite.\t  the  prohibition   the   appellant
\n\t      continued\t to deliver yarn to such  owners  in
\n\t      order  (as already mentioned) that they  might
\n\t      turn  the\t yarn  into.  cloth  and  bring\t the
\n\t      article back to the mills.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(See  Sree  Meenakshi  Mills  Ltd.  v.\tProvincial   Textile
\nCommissioner; Madras(1).\n<\/p>\n
But  the Tribunal has observed in its order  dismissing\t the
\nappeal\tfiled  by  the Company that  it\t was  “not  disputed
\nbefore”\t them that, after February 20, 1946 the Company\t did
\nnot distribute any yam.\n<\/p>\n
The  question referred in this case must be decided  not  on
\nwhat was found or observed by the High Court in appeal\tfrom
\norder, in the proceedings under s. 45 of the Specific Relief
\nAct or by the Judicial Committee, but upon findings of\tfact
\nrecorded by. the Tribunal.  It is unfortunate that the\tHigh
\nCourt  took the facts, not from the statement of  the  case,
\nbut apparently from the judgment. of the Judicial Committee.
\nThe High Court assumed that the Company had contravened\t the
\nlaw because it delivered yarn to weavers in contravention of
\nthe  order dated February 20, 1946.  But the  assumption  on
\nwhich the discussion is founded is erroneous.
\nThe High Court also thought that expenditure to fall  within
\nthe  terms  of s. 10(2)(xv) must be one for the\t purpose  of
\nearning\t income, and there was no material on the record  to
\nshow  that  the\t expenditure  was so  incurred.\t  If  it  is
\nintended  thereby  to  imply  that  the\t primary  motive  in
\nincurring  the expenditure admissible to deduction under  s.
\n10(2)(xv)  must be directly to earn income thereby,  we\t are
\nwith respect unable to agree with that view.
\nThis Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v.  Malaya-
\nlam, Plantations Ltd.(2) observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  expression\t“for  the  purpose  of\t the
\n\t      business”\t  is   wider  in  scope\t  than\t the
\n\t      expression   “for\t the  purpose\tof   earning
\n\t      profits”.\t It’s range is wide: it may take  in
\n\t      not only the    day   to\tday  running  of   a
\n\t      business, but also the rationalizationof
\n\t      administration   and  modernization   of\t its
\n\t      machinery:  it  may include measures  for\t the
\n\t      preservation  of\tthe  business  or  for\t the
\n\t      protection  of  its assets and  property\tfrom
\n\t      expropriation coercive process or assertion of
\n\t      hostile title: it may also comprehend  payment
\n\t      of  statutory  dues  and taxes  imposed  as  a
\n\t      precondition  to\tcommence  or  for   carrying
\n\t      (1)L.R. 76, I.A. 191, 195.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)[1964] 7 S.C.R. 693,705:53 I.T.R. 140, 150.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      399<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      on of a business; it may comprehend many other
\n\t      acts  incidental\tto  the\t carrying  on  of  a
\n\t      business.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Expenditure  incurred  to resist in a civil  proceeding\t the
\nenforcement  of\t a measure-legislative or  executive,  which
\nimposes restrictions on the carrying on of a business, or to
\nobtain\ta declaration that the measure is invalid would,  if
\nother  conditions  are\tsatisfied,  be\tadmissible,  in\t our
\njudgment,  under s. 10(2)(xv) as a permissible deduction  in
\nthe computation of taxable income.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals are therefore allowed.  The question referred is
\nanswered in the affirmative.- The appellant-Company will  be
\nentitled to its costs in this Court and the High Court.\t One
\nhearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
y. P.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
400<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 September, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 444, 1967 SCR (1) 392 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: SHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/09\/1966 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. […]<\/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-39680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 September, 1966 - 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\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-12T11:51:50+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 September, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-12T11:51:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2891,\"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\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966\",\"name\":\"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-12T11:51:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 September, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 September, 1966 - 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\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-12T11:51:50+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 September, 1966","datePublished":"1966-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-12T11:51:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966"},"wordCount":2891,"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\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966","name":"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-12T11:51:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-meenakshi-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-19-september-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 19 September, 1966"}]},{"@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\/39680","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=39680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}