{"id":44833,"date":"1993-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993"},"modified":"2017-05-25T02:35:32","modified_gmt":"2017-05-24T21:05:32","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (2) 187, \t 1993 SCC (2) 262<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBRAITHWAITE AND CO.  LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 SCR  (2) 187\t  1993 SCC  (2) 262\n JT 1993 (3)   159\t  1993 SCALE  (1)761\n\n\nACT:\nCompanies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964:\nSecond\tSchedule  Rule 1(v)-Term  Loan\tfrom  Bank-Repayment\nduring a period of seven years-Whether amounts to \"repayment\nduring\ta period of not less than seven\t years\"-Whether\t the\nrepayment qualifies for inclusion in the capital base.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent-company obtained a Term Loan of Rs. 50,00,000\nrepayable  within  a  period of seven  years.\tThe  company\nincluded  proportionate amount of the said Term Loan in\t its\ncapital base and claimed the statutory 10% deduction in\t the\ncalculation  of\t its chargeable profits for  the  assessment\nyear 1965-66.  The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim  of\nthe  respondent company on the ground that the repayment  of\nthe  Term  Loan was not during a period of not less  than  7\nyears as contemplated in Rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to\nthe  Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.  On\tappeal,\t the\nAppellate  Assistant Commissioner reversed the\tfindings  of\nthe Income-tax Officer.\t Revenue preferred further appeal to\nthe Tribunal which held that only the last instalment of Rs.\n16,00,000  satisfied the requirements of Rule 1(v);  but  in\nrespect\t of  the other four instalments aggregating  to\t Rs.\n34,00,000 the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the  Department\nand  rejected the claim of the respondent-company.   However\nat the instance of the respondent-company, Tribunal referred\nto  the\t High Court the question whether  the  Tribunal\t was\nright in holding that only Rs. 16,00,000 out of the loan  of\nRs. 50,00,000 taken from Bank qualified for inclusion in the\ncapital\t base under Rule 1(v).\tThe High Court answered\t the\nquestion  in the negative and in favour of  the\t respondent-\ncompany.  Against this, Revenue has come in appeal.\nAllowing the appeal , this court,\nHELD : 1. On a plain reading of the proviso to Rule 1(v)  of\nSecond Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964,\nit is clear that in\n188\norder  to claim benefit of the said provision  the  borrowed\nmoney has to be repaid during the period of more than  seven\nyears.\t The only interpretation which can be given  to\t the\nexpression \"during a period of not less than seven years\" is\nthat  the  said period should go beyond\t seven\tyears.\t The\nreasoning  is simple.  The period of seven years  would\t not\ncomplete till the last 'minute' or even the last 'second' of\nthe  said period is counted.  The period of 'not  less\tthan\nseven  years\"  can only mean till after\t the  completion  of\nseven  years.\tTherefore the repayment of  borrowed  amount\nduring\tthe  period of seven years does not  mean  repayment\n'during\t a period of not less than seven years\".   To  claim\nthe  benefit under Rule 1 (v) of the Second Schedule to\t the\nAct  the  repayment of the borrowed money must be  during  a\nperiod which is more than seven years. [191D-G]\n2.   In\t the  instant  case, the entire\t term  loan  of\t Rs.\n50,00,000 taken from the bank does not qualify for inclusion\nin  the capital base under Rule 1(v) of the Second  Schedule\nto  the\t Act but in view of the fact that the order  of\t the\nTribunal  granting relief to the respondent-company  to\t the\nextent\tof  Rs.\t 16  lacs has not  been\t challenged  by\t the\ndepartment,  the Revenue shall be entitled to relief to\t the\nextent of Rs.34 lacs only as not qualified for inclusion  in\nthe capital base. [192E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1054 (NT) of
\n1977.\n<\/p>\n
From  the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.75 of  the  Calcutta
\nHigh Court in I.T.R. No. 44 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
J.   Ramamurthi,  R.  Ayyam  Perumal and  Ms.  A  Subhashini
\n(N.P.) for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
K.C. Dua for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKULDIP SINGH, J. The respondent-company obtained a Term Loan
\nof Rs. 50,00,000 from the National Grindlays Bank Ltd.\t The
\nagreement dated August 1, 1964 provided for repayment of the
\nloan  in  five instalments.  The last instalment was  to  be
\npaid  on July 31, 1971.\t Thus the loan was to be  paid\tback
\nwithin\tthe  period  of seven years from  the  date  of\t the
\nagreement.   The question for our consideration\t is  whether
\nthe repay
\n189<\/span>
\nment  under the agreement was “during a period of  not\tless
\nthan  seven  years” within the proviso to Rule 1(v)  of\t the
\nSecond Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act,\t1964
\n(the Act).\n<\/p>\n
The Act imposed a surtax n so much of the chargeable profits
\nof  every  company  as\texceeded  the  statutory  deduction.
\n“Chargeable profits” were defined by Section 2(5) of the Act
\nto  mean the total income as computed under  the  Income-tax
\nAct, 1961 and adjusted in accordance with the First Schedule
\nto  the Act.  “Statutory deduction” was defined\t by  Section
\n2(8)  of the Act to mean an amount equal to ten per cent  of
\nthe  capital of the company as computed in  accordance\twith
\nthe  provisions\t of  the Second Schedule to the\t Act  or  an
\namount of Rs. 2,00,000 whichever was greater.  Rule 1 of the
\nSecond\tSchedule  to the Act provided how the capital  of  a
\ncompany\t was to be computed.  The relevant part of the\tRule
\nis as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1. Subject to the other provisions  contained
\n\t      in  this\tSchedule, the capital of  a  company
\n\t      shall  be the aggregate of the amounts  as  on
\n\t      the first day of the previous year relevant to
\n\t      the assessment year, of\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)……….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)…………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)………….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)   any\t  moneys   borrowed   by   it\tfrom
\n\t      Government    or\t the   Industrial    Finance
\n\t      Corporation of India or the Industrial  Credit
\n\t      and  Investment  Corporation of India  or\t any
\n\t      other financial institution which the  Central
\n\t      Government  may notify in this behalf  in\t the
\n\t      Official\tGazette or any\tbanking\t institution
\n\t      (not being a financial institution notified as
\n\t      aforesaid) or any person in a country  outside
\n\t      India :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that such moneys are borrowed for the
\n\t      creation\tof a capital asset in India and\t the
\n\t      agreement under which such moneys are borrowed
\n\t      provides\tfor the repayment thereof  during  a
\n\t      period of not less than seven years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      190<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      EXPLANATION:…………………….
\n\t      The  agreement dated August 1,  1964  provided
\n\t      for repayment of the loan in five\t instalments
\n\t      as follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 1. On July 31, 1967 Rs. 5 lakhs\n<\/p>\n
 2. On July 31, 1968 Rs. 7 lakhs\n<\/p>\n
 3. On July 31, 1969 Rs. 10 lakhs\n<\/p>\n
 4. On July 31, 1970 Rs. 12 lakhs\n<\/p>\n
 5. On July 31, 1971 Rs. 16 lakhs
\nThe respondent-company included proportionate amount of\t the
\nTerm  Loan of Rs. 50,00,000 in its capital base and  claimed
\nstatutory percentage of the said amount as deduction in\t the
\ncalculation  of\t its chargeable profits assessable  for\t the
\nassessment  year 1965- 66.  The Income-tax Officer  rejected
\nthe  claim of the respondent-company on the ground that\t the
\nrepayment  of the Term Loan was not “during a period of\t not
\nless  than seven years”.  On appeal the Appellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner reversed the findings of the Income-tax Officer
\nand  held  that the provisions of Rule 1(v)  of\t the  Second
\nSchedule  to  the  Act\twere  satisfied\t and  as  such\t the
\nrespondent-company was entitled to include the Term Loan for
\nthe  purposes  of  computing the  chargeable  profits.\t The
\nDepartment  preferred  further\tappeal\tto  the\t  Income-tax
\nAppellate  Tribunal.  The Tribunal held that only  the\tlast
\ninstalment of Rs. 16,00,000 was payable ‘during a period  of
\nnot  less  than\t seven\tyears” and  as\tsuch  satisfied\t the
\nrequirements  of  Rule\t1(v) but so far as  the\t other\tfour
\ninstalments aggregating to Rs. 34,00,000 were concerned\t the
\nTribunal  allowed the appeal of the Department and  rejected
\nthe claim of the respondent-company.  At the instance of the
\nrespondent-company  the\t Appellate  Tribunal  referred\t the
\nfollowing question for adjudication :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether,\t  on   the   facts   and   in\t the
\n\t      circumstances  of the case, the  Tribunal\t was
\n\t      right  in holding that only Rs. 16,00,000\t out
\n\t      of  the loan of Rs. 50,00,000 taken  from\t the
\n\t      Bank  qualified for inclusion in\tthe  capital
\n\t      base under rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to
\n\t      the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
191<\/span><\/p>\n
The High Court answered the question in the negative and  in
\nfavour\tof the respondent-company.  This appeal\t by  special
\nleave is by the Incometax Department against the judgment of
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no part  of
\nthe  Term Loam of Rs. 50,00,000 qualified for  inclusion  in
\nthe capital base because the provisions of Rule 1(v) of\t the
\nSecond Schedule to the Act were not satisfied.\tAccording to
\nhim  under the Term Loan-Agreement dated August 1, 1964\t the
\nlast instalment was to be paid on July 31, 1971 and as\tsuch
\nthe  period  of\t repayment was less than  seven\t years.\t  He
\nfurther contended that in the context the expression “during
\na  period of not less than seven years”, means a  period  or
\nmore  than  seven  years.   The\t learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent, on the other hand, argued that the Term Loan was
\npayable within the period of seven years.  According to\t him
\nthe  period  of seven years is obviously a period  which  is
\n“not less than seven years”.\n<\/p>\n
We are of the view that on the plain reading of the  proviso
\nto Rule 1(v), Second Schedule to the Act it is clear that in
\norder  to claim benefit of the said provision  the  borrowed
\nmoney has to be repaid during the period of more than  seven
\nyears.\t The only interpretation which can be given  to\t the
\nexpression “during a period of not less than seven years” is
\nthat  the  said period should go beyond\t seven\tyears.\t The
\nreasoning  is simple.  The period of seven years  would\t not
\ncomplete till the last ‘minute’ or even the last ‘second’ of
\nthe  said period are counted.  In other words till the\tlast
\nminute\tof  the seven years period is completed\t the  period
\nremains\t less  than seven years.  In the  present  case\t the
\nagreement   was\t entered  on  August  1,  1964.\t  The\tlast
\ninstalment was to be paid on July 31, 1971.  The seven years
\nwere  to complete at 12 a.m. (between the night of July\t 31,
\n1971 and August 1, 1971).  Even if the loan was paid back at
\n11.59  p.m. on July 31, 1971 the period would be  less\tthan
\nseven  years by one minute.  It is, therefore, obvious\tthat
\nthe period of “not less than seven years” can only mean till
\nafter  the completion of seven years.  We,  therefore,\thold
\nthat  the repayment of borrowed amount during the period  of
\nseven years does not mean repayment “during a period of\t not
\nless  than  seven years”.  To claim the benefit\t under\tRule
\n1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Act the repayment of\t the
\nborrowed  money must be during a period which is  more\tthan
\nseven years.\n<\/p>\n
We  find  support in the view taken by us in  the  following
\ncases. In
\n192<\/span>
\nRamanasari v. Muthusami Naik, ILR 30 Madras 248, Section 1.8
\nof the Madras Rent Recovery Act VIII of 1865 required  that,
\nin fixing the day of sale, not less than seven days must  be
\nallowed\t ‘from\tthe time of-the public notice and  not\tless
\nthan 30 days from the date of distraint’.  The sale was held
\non  the 13th February, but the notice was published  on\t 6th
\nFebruary.   It was held that ‘not less than’ means the\tsame
\nas ‘clear’ and seven whole days must elapse between the\t day
\nof  the\t notice and the day fixed for sale.  In\t re  77\t The
\nRailway\t Sleepers  Supply  Company LJ 1885 54  Ch  720,\t the
\nexpression ‘not less’ than given number of days means ‘clear
\ndays’.\tIt was held that the expression ‘not less’ indicates
\n‘a minimum’.\n<\/p>\n
In  the present case the whole of the Term Loan was  payable
\nwithin the period of seven years and as such the loan of Rs.
\n50,00,000  taken  by the  respondent-company  from  National
\nGrindlays  Bank\t was  not qualified  for  inclusion  in\t the
\ncapital\t base under Rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to\t the
\nAct  The  Tribunal  in\tpart and the  High  Court  were\t not
\njustified in deciding the issue in favour of the respondent-
\ncompany.   Since the order of the Tribunal, granting  relief
\nto the respondent-company to the extent of Rs. 16,00,000 has
\nbecome final, no interference is called for to that extent.
\nWe  allow  this appeal, set aside the judgment of  the\tHigh
\nCourt and answer the question in the manner that the  entire
\nterm  loan  of Rs. 50,00,000 taken from the  bank  does\t not
\nqualify for inclusion in the capital base under Rule 1(v) of
\nthe Second Schedule to the Act but in view of the fact\tthat
\nthe order of the Tribunal granting relief to the respondent-
\ncompany to the extent of Rs.16 lacs has not been  challenged
\nby  the department, the Revenue shall be entitled to  relief
\nto  the\t extent\t of Rs. 34 lacs only as\t not  qualified\t for
\ninclusion in the capital base.\tIn the facts and circumstan-
\nces  of\t this case, we leave the parties to bear  their\t own
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\n<\/p>\n
193<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (2) 187, 1993 SCC (2) 262 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA Vs. RESPONDENT: BRAITHWAITE AND CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1993 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) 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-44833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993 - 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-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-24T21:05:32+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-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-24T21:05:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1538,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-24T21:05:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993 - 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-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-24T21:05:32+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-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993","datePublished":"1993-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-24T21:05:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993"},"wordCount":1538,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-24T21:05:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-braithwaite-and-co-ltd-on-3-march-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs Braithwaite And Co. Ltd on 3 March, 1993"}]},{"@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\/44833","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=44833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}