{"id":53143,"date":"1976-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976"},"modified":"2018-11-26T03:23:12","modified_gmt":"2018-11-25T21:53:12","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 424, \t\t 1977 SCR (2)\t 78<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. P.S.S. INVESTMENTS (P) LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/11\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  424\t\t  1977 SCR  (2)\t 78\n 1976 SCC  (4) 712\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Finance  Act,  1958,  First Schedule Part II,   Explana-\n\ttion (iii)  to paragraph D--Calculation of rebate in  compu-\n\ttation of super-tax, whether profits earned during  previous\n\tyear to be taken into account.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The\t Income-tax officer took into account  the  respond-\n\tent's entire dividend income of the year ending December 30,\n\t1957, while calculating the super-tax payable by it for\t the\n\tassessment year 1958-59.  In appeal against the\t computation\n\tthe  respondent\t contended before  the\tAppellate  Assistant\n\tCommissioner  that  the\t dividend-income  included   profits\n\tearned during the previous years, and that rebate should  be\n\treduced only with reference to the proportionate part of the\n\tdividend  declared  during 1957 which had come\tout  of\t the\n\tother  income assessed to income-tax. and super-tax  in\t the\n\tassessment  year 1957-58.  The respondent's  contention\t was\n\taccepted  in  principle.  The Department's appeal  was\tdis-\n\tmissed\tby  the\t Appellate Tribunal.  The  matter  was\tthen\n\treferred to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Indian\n\tIncome Tax Act, 1922, and decided in favour of the assessee.\n\tAllowing the appeals the Court,\n\t    HELD: For computing the reduction in rebate under  para-\n\tgraph D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act,\n\t1958, the position of profits and gains as it existed in the\n\tprevious  year should be taken into account and not  in\t the\n\tyears  prior to that Clause (iii) introduces a fiction\twith\n\tregard\tto the amount of dividends which shall be deemed  to\n\thave been distributed.\tThe taxing authorities have to\ttake\n\tinto account the company's total income and the profits\t and\n\tgains other than capital receipts reduced by certain  allow-\n\tances only in the previous year, i.e., the year in which the\n\tdividend  was distributed.  The fact that those profits\t and\n\tgains  accrued in years prior to the previous year  and\t in-\n\tcluded' portions which were exempt from tax under the provi-\n\tsions of the Income-tax Act would not be of much  relevance.\n\t[85 A-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1853(A)
\n\tand 1854 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 18th April,
\n\t1969  of the Madras High Court Madras in Tax Cases  Nos.  18
\n\tand 19 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
\tV.S.  Desai, J. Ratnamurthi and M.N. Shroff, for the  Appel-
\n\tlant.\n<\/p>\n
\tT.A. Ramachandran, for Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    KHANNA,  J.\t This judgment would dispose  of  two  civil
\n\tappeals Nos. 1853(A) and 1854 of 1971 which have been  filed
\n\ton certificate by the Commissioner of Income-tax against the
\n\tjudgment  of  Madras  High Court (reported in  79  ITR\t456)
\n\tanswering the following two questions referred to it in\t two
\n\treferences under section 66(1) of
\n\t79<\/span>
\n\tthe Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in the affirmative in favour
\n\tof the assessee and against the revenue:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “1.\t Whether  on the facts\tand  in\t the
\n\t\t      circumstances  of\t the  case,  the   Appellate
\n\t\t      Tribunal\t was  right  in\t holding  that\t for
\n\t\t      computing the reduction in rebate under Para D
\n\t\t      of  Part\tII  to the  First  schedule  to\t the
\n\t\t      Finance  Act, 1959 (in R. A. No. 169 of  1965-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      66)   and of Finance  Act, 1958,(in  R.A.\t No.
\n\t\t      168 of 1965-66) in the composition of  profits
\n\t\t      of the year from which the dividend  had\tbeen
\n\t\t      declared should be looked into, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t    2.\tWhether the Appellate  Tribunal\t was
\n\t\t      right  in\t law  in holding that  the  paid  up
\n\t\t      capital  of  the assessee\t company  should  be
\n\t\t      proportionately reduced for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\n\t\t      reducing the rebate in Corporation Tax in\t the
\n\t\t      manner directed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    The\t matter relates to the assessment of the  respondent
\n\tcompany\t for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60.\t For
\n\tsake of convenience we may set out the facts relating to the
\n\tassessment  year  1958-59.   It is the common  case  of\t the
\n\tparties\t that\tthe   decision about that  year\t would\talso
\n\tgovern\tthe  point  of controversy  relating  to  the  other
\n\tyear.-The  assessee  is a private limited  company.  In\t the
\n\tprevious year ending on December 31, 1957 relevant  for\t the
\n\tassessment  year  1958-.59, it declared a  dividend  of\t Rs.
\n\t99.000.\t  Its paid up capital was Rs. 1,65,000.\t  The  total
\n\tincome of the assessee company was determined at Rs.  73,255
\n\tmade up as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tBusiness\t\t\t\t\tNil\n\tOther sources\t\t\t\t\t26,554\n\tCapital gains\t\t\t\t\t46,701\n\tTotal income\t\t\t\t\t73,255\n<\/pre>\n
\t    As\tthe dividend of Rs. 99,000 declared by the  assessee
\n\tcompany\t was in excess of 6 per cent of the paid up  capital
\n\tof  the\t company,  the Income-tax  Officer   worked  up\t the
\n\tsuper-tax payable  by the. assessee as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t       RS.\n<\/p>\n
\tCorporation tax\t @ 50 % on Rs. 26,554\t\t   13,277
\n\tless rebate @ 30 % on Rs. 26,554\t\t    7,966.20
\n\tReduction in rebate
\n\tUp to 6%0 of the paid-up capital 9900 .\t    Nil
\n\t6% to 10% of the paid up capital in 6600
\n\t   @ 10%\t\t\t\t   660.00
\n\tBalance at 20% 82500 @ 20%\t\t  1,65,00.00
\n\t    17,160.00
\n\tBalance carried forward to next year\t\t    9,193.80
\n\t    The\t assessee company objected to the above\t computation
\n\tof the super-tax and took the matter in appeal to the Appel-
\n\tlate  Assistant Commissioner.  It  w.as urged on  behalf  of
\n\tthe  assessee  that   the dividend of  Rs.  99,000  declared
\n\tduring the year ending 1957  was
\n\t80<\/span>
\n\tout  of\t the  profits of the previous year  which  ended  on
\n\tDecember 31, 1956.  According to the assessee, the  dividend
\n\tincome\tdetermined for the assessment year 1957-58  was\t Rs.
\n\t1,74,196  which\t included capital gains to the\t extent\t  of
\n\tRs.  1,10,105.\tThe  dividend  of Rs. 99,000, it was  urged,
\n\tshould\tbe  apportioned\t between the  capital  gain  of\t Rs.
\n\t1,10,105  and  the other income of Rs. 64,091  after  taking
\n\tinto account the tax payable thereon.  The assessee computed
\n\tthe figures as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  Rs.<\/p>\n
\n\tCapital receipts not assessable\t\t\t 44,279\n\t\t\t\t\t   Capital gains is assessed\n\tless tax\t\t 75,423\n\tOther income less tax\t\t\t\t 22,492\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       1,42,194\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe assessee claimed that rebate should be reduced only with
\n\treference to the sum of Rs. 15,659 being proportionate\tpart
\n\tof the dividend declared during the previous year ending  on
\n\tDecember  31,  1957 which had come out of the  other  income
\n\tassessed to income-tax and super-tax in the assessment\tyear
\n\t1957-58.   The\tfigure of Rs. 15,659 was arrived at  by\t the
\n\tassessee as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t99,000 x 22,492\n<\/p>\n
\t—————-\n<\/p>\n
\t1,42, 194
\n\t    The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted in princi-
\n\tple  the  assessee’s contention that the components  of\t the
\n\tdividend should be considered with reference to the  profits
\n\tof  the previous year.\tHe, however, computed  proportionate
\n\tdividend  at a higher figure by including the capital  gains
\n\tof Rs. 75,423 with the sum of Rs. 22,492 as shown below:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       Rs.\n<\/p>\n
\tNet available profits attributable to assessed
\n\tincome (22,492-75,423)\t\t\t     97,915
\n\tNet available profits\t\t\t   1,42,194
\n\tDividends declared\t\t\t     99,000
\n\t\t\t\t\t    97,915   99,000
\n\tProportionate dividend:\t\t    —————  =68,171
\n\t\t\t\t\t       1,42,194
\n\t    The\t Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner   retained\t the
\n\tpaid  up capital at Rs. 1,65,000 as per balance sheet  with-
\n\tout  apportionment on the basis of taxed and  non-taxed\t in-
\n\tcome.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t department took the matter in appeal to the  Appel-
\n\tlate Tribunal.\tThe Tribunal  dismissed\t the  appeal   hold-
\n\ting   that  the “previous year” under Explanation  (iii)  to
\n\tParagraph D of Part II to the First Schedule to the  Finance
\n\tAct,  1958,  refers  only to the previous year\tout  of\t the
\n\tprofits\t of which the dividends were declared and  therefore
\n\tthe composition of the profits and gains of the company\t out
\n\tof  which dividends were declared had to be looked into\t for
\n\tworking out the proportion under Explanation (iii) to  Para-
\n\tgraph D of Part II to the First Schedule to the Finance\t Act
\n\tof 1958.\n<\/p>\n
\t    At\tthe  instance  of the  Commissioner,  the  questions
\n\treproduced above were thereafter referred to the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t81<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    In appeal before the High Court, it was argued on behalf
\n\tof the revenue that dividends having been distributed during
\n\tthe  accounting\t year  relevant to the\tassessment  year  in
\n\tquestion,  it is that year alone which has to be taken\tinto
\n\tconsideration for calculating the supertax under the  appro-
\n\tpriate Finance Act.  The fact that such profits were  trace-
\n\table  to  the profits earned during the year  prior  to\t the
\n\taccounting  year,  according to the submission, was  not  of
\n\tsignificance and had to be ignored for the purpose of  work-
\n\ting out the quantum of rebate in such super-tax made  avail-
\n\table in the Finance Act.  It was accordingly urged that\t the
\n\tyear  of distribution, namely,\tthe accounting year, is\t the
\n\tonly  basis  for the calculation of the rebate.\t As  against
\n\tthat,  it  was submitted on behalf of the assessee  that  it
\n\twould  be unreal if the years in which the profits had\tbeen
\n\tadmittedly earned was to be ignored and reliance was  placed
\n\tfor calculation of rebate on the ministerial act of  distri-
\n\tbution.\t  The  High  Court, while  answering  the  questions
\n\treferred  to  it in favour of the assessee and\tagainst\t the
\n\trevenue, observed us under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “If,  therefore, ‘distribution’ is\tthus
\n\t\t      to   be  understood  as  a   ministerial\t act
\n\t\t      resulting\t from the indoor management  of\t the
\n\t\t      company,\tcan  that  be the sine\tqua  non  to
\n\t\t      decide  the question of quantum of  rebate  to
\n\t\t      which  the company would be entitled  under  a
\n\t\t      particular Finance Act?  If the year in  which
\n\t\t      distribution  is to be effected is  considered
\n\t\t      for  purposes of the Finance Act and  for\t the
\n\t\t      determination  of the quantum of rebate,\tthen
\n\t\t      it  would result in a notional  implementation
\n\t\t      of the benefit contemplated by the legislature
\n\t\t      to  a  company in the nature of a\t rebate\t and
\n\t\t      would  not amount to a realistic\tapproach  of
\n\t\t      such  a  vital  problem  connected  with\t the
\n\t\t      finances\tof the company.\t It may be  that  in
\n\t\t      any  particular  year  when  distribution\t  of
\n\t\t      dividends have been made, the paid-up  capital
\n\t\t      might  have been reduced or increased, as\t the
\n\t\t      case may be.  Is that paid-up capital going to
\n\t\t      be  taken\t as the basis for  working  out\t the
\n\t\t      relative\tbenefits  or  disadvantages  to\t  be
\n\t\t      enjoyed  or suffered by a company?  We are  of
\n\t\t      the  view that it is neither the intention  of
\n\t\t      the legislature, nor could it be said to be  a
\n\t\t      reasonable   inference   of   the\t  provisions
\n\t\t      thereto.\tIn fact,  the Explanation to the Fi-
\n\t\t      nance  Act,  1958, which elucidates  the\tterm
\n\t\t      ‘paid-up\tcapital’,  gives  the  key  to\t the
\n\t\t      interpretation  of  the  word  ‘distribution’.
\n\t\t      ‘Paid-up capital’ means the paid-up capital of
\n\t\t      the  company on the first day of the  previous
\n\t\t      year  relevant for the assessment year  ending
\n\t\t      on 31st March, 1959.  It is, therefore,  clear
\n\t\t      that the paid-up capital of the company during
\n\t\t      the  assessment  year  cannot  be\t said,\t for
\n\t\t      purposes\tof  Paragraph D of Part\t II  of\t the
\n\t\t      First  Schedule to the Finance Act, 1958,\t to.
\n\t\t      be  the paid-up capital of the year  in  which
\n\t\t      the  profits  arose and from  which  dividends
\n\t\t      were distributed during the assessment year.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    Before dealing with the contentions advanced, it may  be
\n\tappropriate to refer to the relevant provisions.   According
\n\tto. section 55 of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922, in  addi-
\n\ttion to the income-tax
\n\t7–1458SCI\/76
\n\t82<\/span>
\n\tcharged for any year there shall be charged, levied and paid
\n\tfor that year in respect of the total income of the   previ-
\n\tous   year   of\t  any individual,  Hindu  undivided  family,
\n\tcompany, local authority, unregistered firm or other associ-
\n\tation of persons, not being a registered firm, or the  part-
\n\tners of the firm or members of the association individually,
\n\tan additional duty of income-tax (in this Act referred to as
\n\tsuper-tax) at the rate or rates laid down for that year by a
\n\tCentral\t Act.  Clause (b) of section 2 of the  Finance\tAct,
\n\t1958 (Act No. 11 of 1958) provides, inter alia, that subject
\n\tto  the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) with which  we
\n\tare  not concerned, for the year beginning on the first\t day
\n\tof April 1958.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “(b)  super-tax shall, for the  purposes
\n\t\t      of  section 55 of the Indian  Income-tax\tAct,
\n\t\t      1922 (XI of 1922) (hereinafter referred to  as
\n\t\t      the  Income-tax Act), be charged at the  rates
\n\t\t      specified in Part II of the First Schedule.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    We are concerned in the present case with Paragraph D of
\n\tPart II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1958.\t The
\n\trelevant part of the above paragraph reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      RATE OF SUPER-TAX
\n\t\t      In the case of every other company,–<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\t\t      RATES OF SUPER-TAX\n\t\t\t  On\t the\twhole\t of    the     total\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      income  ………………  50%: Provided that
\n\t\t      ,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (i) ……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (ii)\ta rebate at the rate of 40 per\tcent
\n\t\t      on so much of the total income as consists  of
\n\t\t      dividends from a subsidiary Indian company and
\n\t\t      a\t rebate\t at the rate of 30 per cent  on\t the
\n\t\t      balance  of the total income shall be  allowed
\n\t\t      in  the  case of any company  which  satisfies
\n\t\t      condition\t (a) but not condition (b)  of\t the
\n\t\t      preceding clause;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t   (iii)……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      Provided further that,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t  (i) the amount of the rebate under  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      (i)  or  clause (ii) shall be reduced  by\t the
\n\t\t      sum,  if\tany,  equal to\tthe  amount  or\t the
\n\t\t      aggregate of the amounts, as the case may\t be,
\n\t\t      computed as hereunder:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t…………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t…………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t     (c)  in  addition,\t in the\t case  of  a
\n\t\t      company  referred\t to in clause  (ii)  of\t the
\n\t\t      preceding proviso which has distributed to its
\n\t\t      shareholders   during   the   previous\tyear
\n\t\t      dividends\t in  excess of six per cent  of\t its
\n\t\t      paid-up  capital, not being dividends  payable
\n\t\t      at a fixed rate–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      83<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t (A)  in the case of a company which is\t not
\n\t\t      such  as is referred to in sub-section (9)  of
\n\t\t      section 23A of the Income-tax Act :–
\n\t\t\t\ton  that part of the said  dividends
\n\t\t      which exceeds 6 per cent, but does not  exceed
\n\t\t      10   per\t cent  of   the\t  paid-up   capital;
\n\t\t      at the rate of 10%
\n\t\t\t\ton  that part of the said  dividends
\n\t\t      which  exceeds  10  per cent  of\tthe  paid-up
\n\t\t      capital;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t    at\t the
\n\t\t      rate of 20%
\n\t\t      Explanation.–For\t  the\tpurpose\t  of\tthis
\n\t\t      paragraph-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(i)  ……………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(ii) ……………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(iii)  where any portion of the profits\t and
\n\t\t      gains  of the company is not included  in\t its
\n\t\t      total  income  by reason of such portion being
\n\t\t      exempt  from  tax under any provision  of\t the
\n\t\t      Income-tax  Act, the ‘paid-up capital’ of\t the
\n\t\t      company,\tthe amount distributed as  dividends
\n\t\t      (not being dividends payable at a fixed rate),
\n\t\t      the amount representing the face value of\t any
\n\t\t      bonus  shares  and  the amount  of  any  bonus
\n\t\t      issued  to  the  shareholders  shall  each  be
\n\t\t      deemed  to be such proportion thereof  as\t the
\n\t\t      total  income of the company for the  previous
\n\t\t      year bears to its total profits and gains\t for
\n\t\t      that year other than capital receipts, reduced
\n\t\t      by such allowances as may be admissible  under
\n\t\t      the Income-tax Act which have  not  been taken
\n\t\t      into account by the company in its profit\t and
\n\t\t      loss account for that year.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    In\tappeal before us Mr. Desai on behalf of the   appel-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tlant  has urged that dividend having been distributed during
\n\tthe  accounting\t year  relevant to the\tassessment  year  in
\n\tquestion,  it  is the profits and gains of that\t year  alone
\n\twhich should be taken into consideration for calculating the
\n\trebate\tin the levy of super-tax.  The fact that such  divi-
\n\tdend was distributed out of the profits earned in the  years
\n\tprior  to  that was, according to.  the\t  learned   counsel,
\n\tirrelevant. Particular stress in this context has been\tlaid
\n\tupon  the language of clause (iii) of the  Explanation\tcon-
\n\ttained\tin Paragraph D of Part II of the First\tSchedule  to
\n\tthe Finance Act,1958.  As against that, Mr. Ramachandran who
\n\thas  argued  the case amicus curiae has\t canvassed  for\t the
\n\tcorrectness of the view taken by the High Court.
\n\t    We\thave set out above the relevant part of Paragraph  D
\n\tof  Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act,  1958.
\n\tThe  language in which the above paragraph is couched is  so
\n\tcomplex and is hedged in with so many exceptions and  provi-
\n\tsos  that  it  can  hardly  be regarded as a model of clari-
\n\tty  in\tlegislative draftsmanship.   Paragraph\tD  initially
\n\tprescribes the rate of super-tax at 50 per cent on the total
\n\tincome of the company.\tThe first  proviso  then  makes
\n\t84<\/span>
\n\tprovision  for\trebate in the assessment of  the  super-tax.
\n\tThe rebate for a company like the respondent with no  income
\n\tin  the form of dividend from a subsidiary company is to  be
\n\tat  the rate of 30 per cent.  The second proviso carves\t out
\n\treduction in the rebate. Clause (c) of that proviso sets out
\n\tthe  formula  for calculating that reduction  at  a  sliding
\n\tscale  in case the amount of distributed dividend exceeds  6
\n\tper cent of the paid-up capital.  There then follows a third
\n\tproviso\t but  we are not concerned with that.\tAt  the\t end
\n\tcomes the Explanation consisting of three clauses.  For\t the
\n\tpurpose\t of  the present case, the relevant clause is (iii).
\n\tThe  said clause makes provision in cases which fall  within
\n\tits ambit for a further reduction in the reduction mentioned
\n\tabove.\t To  put it in other words, the paragraph  seeks  to
\n\tprescribe the rate of super-tax.  It then proceeds to  grant
\n\tsome  relief to the tax\t payer in  the levy of .  super-tax.
\n\tIt  thereafter\tmakes  a cut in that  relief.\tFinally,  it
\n\tprescribes  a  cut in that cut.\t The  intelligence  of\teven
\n\tthose with legal background gets staggered in this  continu-
\n\tous  process of carving exceptions to exceptions.  It  seems
\n\tmore  like  a  conundrum, baffling the\tmind  and  requiring
\n\tspecial acumen to unravel its mystique.\t One can only wonder
\n\tas to how the ordinary tax payers, most of whom are  laymen,
\n\tcan keep abreast of such laws.\t Yet the maxim is that every
\n\tone  is presumed to know the law.  The one redeeming feature
\n\tis  that  the above pattern was given up after\t1959.\tFrom
\n\t1960  to  1964 there was another pattern.   Since  1965\t the
\n\tcharge\tof super-tax has been discontinued and the rates  of
\n\tincome-tax  have  been so increased as to absorb  fully\t the
\n\tformer levy of super-tax.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t fate of these appeals, as would appear\t  from\t the
\n\tabove,\tdepends\t upon  the wording of clause  (iii)  of\t the
\n\tExplanation.  The said clause contemplates, inter alia, that
\n\tin calculating the amount deemed to have been distributed as
\n\tdividends,  certain proportion of the amount  actually\tdis-
\n\ttributed  has to be taken into. account.  The  said  clause,
\n\tshorn of the portions with which we are not concerned, reads
\n\tas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Where  any\tportion of the\tprofits\t and
\n\t\t      gains  of the company is not included  in\t its
\n\t\t      total  income by reason of such portion  being
\n\t\t      exempt  from  tax under any provision  of\t the
\n\t\t      Income-tax Act,  ……the amount\t distributed
\n\t\t      as  dividends  …..  shall..be deemed  to  be
\n\t\t      such proportion thereof as the total income of
\n\t\t      the company for  the  previous  year bears  to
\n\t\t      its  total  profits and gains  for  that\tyear
\n\t\t      other  than capital receipts, reduced by\tsuch
\n\t\t      allowances   as  may  be admissible under\t the
\n\t\t      Income-tax Act which have not been taken\tinto
\n\t\t      account by the company in its profit and\tloss
\n\t\t      account for that year.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    The\t above\tclause provides a formula which\t has  to  be
\n\tapplied for determining the amount of dividends which  shall
\n\tbe  deemed  to\thave been  distributed\tin  considering\t the
\n\tquantum\t of  rebate  for assessing the super-tax payable  by
\n\ta company.  The occasion for applying this formula is  indi-
\n\tcated by the opening lines of the clause and arises when any
\n\tportion of the profits and gains of the company
\n\t85<\/span>
\n\tis  not included in its total income by reason of such\tpor-
\n\ttion  being  exempt  from tax under the\t provisions  of\t the
\n\tIncome-tax  Act.  Once such an occasion arises, we  have  to
\n\tapply  the  formula  contained in the  tatter  part  of\t the
\n\tclause.\t  According to that formula, the amount\t distributed
\n\tas  dividends shall be deemed to be such proportion  thereof
\n\tas the total income of the previous year bears to its  total
\n\tprofits\t and  gains for that year other\t than  capital\t re-
\n\tceipts,\t  reduced  by certain allowances with which  we\t are
\n\tnot  concerned.\t The  words “for the previous year” and “for
\n\tthat  year”  indicate  that in finding for  the\t purpose  of
\n\trebate\tthe amount of dividends\t which\tshall be  deemed  to
\n\thave  been  distributed, we have to look to  the  figure  of
\n\ttotal income and the amount of profits and gains other\tthan
\n\tcapital\t receipts of the company reduced by  certain  allow-
\n\tances  in  the previous year alone and\tnot  earlier  years.
\n\tClause\t (iii)\t introduces  a fiction with  regard  to\t the
\n\tamount\tof  dividends  which shall be deemed  to  have\tbeen
\n\tdistributed.   Such  a fiction can operate only\t within\t the
\n\tlimits\tprescribed by the language of the  statute  creating
\n\tthat  fiction.\tThe language used in clause (iii) points  to
\n\tthe conclusion that the taxing authorities have to take into
\n\taccount the company’s total income and the profits and gains
\n\tother  than capital receipts reduced by\t certain  allowances
\n\tonly  in  the  previous year, i.e., the year  in  which\t the
\n\tdividend  was distributed.  The fact that those profits\t and
\n\tgains  accrued in years prior to the previous year  and\t in-
\n\tcluded portions which were exempt from tax under the  provi-
\n\tsions  of the Income-tax Act would not be of much  relevance
\n\tas  the language of the clause requires the taxing  authori-
\n\tties  to  look\tto  the position of profits and gains in the
\n\tprevious year alone.  We would, therefore, modify the answer
\n\tgiven  by the High Court to question No. (1) and answer\t the
\n\taforesaid question in the negative.  The correct answer,  in
\n\tour  opinion, should be that  for  computing  the  reduction
\n\tin rebate under Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule
\n\tto  the Finance Act, 1958 the position of profits and  gains
\n\tas  it\texisted in the previous year should  be\t taken\tinto
\n\taccount and not in the years prior to that.
\n\t    No arguments have been addressed before us on the answer
\n\tto question No. (2).\n<\/p>\n
\t    We\taccordingly accept the appeals, set aside the  judg-
\n\tment  of the High Court and answer question No. (1)  in\t the
\n\tnegative  as  indicated above.\tThe parties in\tthe  circum-
\n\tstances shall bear their own costs in this Court and in\t the
\n\tHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\n\tallowed.\n\t86<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 424, 1977 SCR (2) 78 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. P.S.S. INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/11\/1976 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS […]<\/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-53143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976 - 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-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976\" \/>\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 M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976 - 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-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-25T21:53:12+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=\"18 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-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T21:53:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976\"},\"wordCount\":3178,\"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-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\\\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-25T21:53:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976\"}]},{\"@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 M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976 - 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-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-25T21:53:12+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976","datePublished":"1976-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T21:53:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976"},"wordCount":3178,"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-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-25T21:53:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-p-s-s-investments-p-ltd-on-9-november-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. P.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd on 9 November, 1976"}]},{"@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\/53143","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=53143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}