{"id":6339,"date":"1960-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960"},"modified":"2016-01-31T15:24:22","modified_gmt":"2016-01-31T09:54:22","slug":"commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of … vs Karamchand Premchand … on 28 April, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of … vs Karamchand Premchand … on 28 April, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 1175, \t\t 1960 SCR (3) 727<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,AHMEDABAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKARAMCHAND PREMCHAND LTD.,AHMEDABAD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/04\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR 1175\t\t  1960 SCR  (3) 727\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1962 SC1272\t (9)\n R\t    1970 SC1173\t (26)\n R\t    1975 SC1282\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax-Set-off-Business loss in Indian State-Profits  in\nBritish India-Applicability of the Act to business in Indian\nState Business profits Tax Act, 1947 (21 Of 1947), SS. 2(3),\n4, 5.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  assesses held the managing agency of a limited  company\nin  what  was  then called \" British India and\thad  also  a\npharma\n728\nceutical  business  in\tthe Baroda State which\twas  at\t the\nrelevant  time\tan Indian State.  The  business\t in  British\nIndia showed profits assessable under the provisions of\t the\nBusiness Profits Tax Act, 1947, but the business carried  on\nin  Baroda  resulted in a loss, in the\trelevant  chargeable\naccounting  periods  between  1946  and\t 1949.\t Before\t the\nIncome-tax  authorities the assessee claimed that  the\tloss\nsuffered by it in its business in Baroda should be  deducted\nin computing its business income liable to business  profits\ntax,  but this claim was rejected on the ground that  though\nunder s. 5 Of the Act, if it stood by itself without any  of\nthe  provisos,\tthe Act would be applicable  to\t the  Baroda\nbusiness, the third proviso had the effect of excluding that\nbusiness  from the purview of the Act, except in so  far  as\nthe  income, profits or gains of the business were  received\nor deemed to be received in or brought into British India:\nHeld,  that the effect of the third proviso to s. 5  of\t the\nBusiness  Profits  Tax Act- 1947, was merely to\t exempt\t the\nincome, profits and gains of the Baroda business except when\nthey  were received or brought into British India,  but\t the\nbusiness  itself  was one to which the\tAct  was  applicable\nunder the substantive part Of s. 5. Consequently, the losses\nof the business could be set off against the profits of\t the\nbusiness in British India.\nThe relevant provisions of the Act are set out in the  judg-\nment.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1958.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated September 7,  1956,
\nof  the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 19  of
\n1956.\n<\/p>\n
C. K. Daphtary,Solicitor-General of India,K. N.\t   Rajagopal
\nSastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
N.   A. Palkhivala and S. N. Andley, for the respondent.
\n1960.  April 28.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nS.K.  DAS, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate of  fitness
\ngranted by the High Court of Bombay, and the short  question
\nfor  decision  is  the true scope and effect  of  the  third
\nproviso\t to s. 5 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947\t(Act
\nNo.  XXI of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act.\t The
\nappellant is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad,\t and
\nthe  respondent is a private limited company under the\tname
\nand  style  of Karamchand Premchand Ltd., Ahmedabad,  to  be
\ncalled hereafter as the assesses.\n<\/p>\n
729<\/span><\/p>\n
The  relevant  facts  are  these :  the\t assessee  held\t the
\nmanaging  agency of the Ahmedabad Manufacturing\t and  Calico
\nPrinting Co. Ltd.  It also had a pharmaceutical business  in
\nthe  Baroda State, which was at the relevant time an  Indian
\nState run in the name and style of Sarabhai Chemicals.\t The
\nassessee’s  business in India (we shall use  the  expression
\nIndia in this judgment to mean British India as it was\tthen
\ncalled\tin  contra-distinction to an  Indian  State)  showed
\nbusiness profits assessable under the provisions of the Act;
\nbut  the  business  carried  on in the\tname  and  style  of
\nSarabhai  Chemicals in Baroda showed a loss in the  relevant
\nchargeable  accounting\tperiods which were four\t in  number,
\nnamely: (1) April 1, 1946, to December 31, 1946; (2) January
\n1,  1947,  to  December 31, 1947; (3) January  1,  1948,  to
\nDecember  31, 1948 ; and (4) January 1, 1949, to  March\t 31,
\n1949.\tThe assessee claimed that its assessable  income  in
\nIndia  should be reduced by the loss suffered by it  in\t its
\nbusiness  in  Baroda.  The Income-tax Officer  rejected\t the
\nclaim of the assessee and held that the Act did not apply to
\nthe  business carried on in an Indian State  unless  profits
\nand  gains of that business were received or deemed to\thave
\nbeen  received\tin  or brought into India.   On\t appeal\t the
\nAppellate  Assistant Commissioner upheld the  contention  of
\nthe assessee and allowed the appeal.  The Department went up
\nin  appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, which held that  under
\nthe relevant proviso to s. 5 of the Act, profits and  losses
\nof  a business in an Indian State were not to be taken\tinto
\nconsideration  unless they were received or deemed  to\thave
\nbeen received in or brought into India.\t In that view of the
\nmatter\tthe  Tribunal set aside the order of  the  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner and restored that of the  Income-tax
\nOfficer.   The\tassessee  then moved  four  applications  in
\nrespect of the four relevant chargeable accounting  periods,
\nand by these applications the assessee required the Tribunal
\nto state a case to the High Court of Bombay on the  question
\nof   law  which\t arose\tout  of\t its  order.\tThese\tfour
\napplications  were  consolidated.   The\t Tribunal  on  being
\nsatisfied  that a question of law arose out of its order  in
\nthe four cases numbered as 85, 86, 87
\n730<\/span>
\nand 88 of 1953-54, referred that question to the Bombay High
\nCourt in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
” Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the\tcase
\nthe  loss  suffered  by\t the assessee  in  the\tbusiness  of
\nSarabhai  Chemicals  should  be deducted  in  computing\t the
\nbusiness  income of the assessee company liable to  business
\nprofits tax ?”\n<\/p>\n
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative\t and
\ncame  to  the conclusion that the assessee was\tentitled  to
\ndeduct the losses incurred by it in its Baroda business\t and
\nset  them  off\tagainst\t the profits  made  in\tthe  taxable
\nterritories.   The appellant then moved the High  Court\t and
\nobtained a certificate of fitness.  On that certificate\t the
\npresent appeal has come to us.\n<\/p>\n
The  main contention on behalf of the appellant is that\t the
\nHigh  Court came to an erroneous conclusion with  regard  to
\nthe  true scope and effect of the third proviso to s.  5  of
\nthe  Act.   It\tis necessary here to refer to  some  of\t the
\nprovisions of the Act to understand its general scheme.\t  In
\n1940  the Central Legislature passed the Excess Profits\t Tax
\nAct,  1940 (Act No. XV of 1940), to impose a tax  on  excess
\nprofits\t arising out of certain businesses.  We\t shall\thave
\noccasion to refer to some of the provisions of that Act,  in
\ndue course.  For the purposes of that Act, the expression  ”
\nchargeable  accounting\tperiod ” meant\t(a)  any  accounting
\nperiod falling wholly within the term beginning on September
\n1,  1939,  and ending on March 31, 1946, and (b)  where\t any
\naccounting period fell partly within and partly without\t the
\nsaid  term,  such  part of that accounting  period  as\tfell
\nwithin the said term.  It may be here stated that originally
\nthe term was from September 1, 1939, to March 31, 1941,\t but
\nby  several annual Finance Acts the term was extended up  to
\nMarch 31, 1946.\n<\/p>\n
In  1947  came\tthe Act in  which  ”  chargeable  accounting
\nperiod” means:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  any  accounting period falling wholly within  the\tterm
\nbeginning  on April 1, 1946, and ending on March  31,  1949,
\nand\n<\/p>\n
(b)  where  any\t accounting period falls partly\t within\t and
\npartly without the said term, such part
\n731<\/span>
\nof that accounting period as falls within the said term.
\nThe Act extended to the whole of India.\t The word  business”
\nis  defined  in s. 2(3) of the Act as including\t any  trade,
\ncommerce  or  manufacture, etc., the profits  of  which\t are
\nchargeable  according  to  the provisions of s.\t 10  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax  Act, 1922.\tThere are two  provisoes  to
\nthis definition clause, and the second. proviso states\tthat
\nall  businesses to which the Act applies carried on  by\t the
\nsame  person  shall  be\t treated as  one  business  for\t the
\npurposes  of the Act.  The expression ” taxable profits”  is
\ndefined under s. 2(17) of the Act and it means the amount by
\nwhich  the  profits during a  chargeable  accounting  period
\nexceed\tthe  abatement in respect of that period.   What  is
\nmeant by ” abatement” is defined in s. 2(1) of the Act.\t The
\ncharging section is s. 4 and we may read that section  here,
\nso  far\t as  it is relevant for our  purpose,  in  order  to
\nunderstand the general scheme, of the tax imposed under\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
” S. 4. Charge of tax-Subject to the provisions of this Act,
\nthere  ;hall  in respect of any business to which  this\t Act
\napplies,  be  charged,\tlevied and paid\t on  the  amount  of
\ntaxable\t profits during any chargeable accounting period,  a
\ntax  (in  this Act referred to as ” business  profits  tax”)
\nwhich shall, in respect of any chargeable accounting  period
\nending on or before the 31st day of March, 1947, be equal to
\nsixteen and two-third per cent, of the taxable profits,\t and
\nin  respect  of any chargeable accounting  period  beginning
\nafter  that date be equal to such percentage of the  taxable
\nprofits as may be fixed by the annual Finance Act.”
\nShortly\t stated,  the  scheme  is that\tin  respect  of\t any
\nbusiness  to which the Act applies, there shall be  charged,
\nlevied\tand paid a tax called “business profits tax” on\t the
\namount\tof  the\t taxable profits,  which  means\t the  amount
\nexceeding  the abatement, during any  chargeable  accounting
\nperiod; the tax shall be equal to sixteen and two-third\t per
\ncent.  of the taxable profits in respect of  the  chargeable
\naccounting period ending on or before March 31, 1947, and in
\nrespect\t of  any charge. able accounting period\t after\tthat
\ndate, the tax shall
\n732<\/span>
\nbe equal to such percentage of the taxable profits as may be
\nfixed by the annual Finance Act.  Then comes s.\t  5 which is
\nthe section dealing with the application of  the Act and  it
\nis in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
S.  5.\tApplication  of Act-This Act shall  apply  to  every
\nbusiness  of which any part of the profits made\t during\t the
\nchargeable accounting period is chargeable to income-tax  by
\nvirtue\tof  the provisions of sub-clause (i)  or  sub-clause\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  of  clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 4  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax Act, 1922, or of clause (c) of that\tsub-
\nsection:\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that this Act shall Dot apply to any business\t the
\nwhole  of the profits of which accrue or arise\twithout\t the
\ntaxable territories where such business is carried on by  or
\non  behalf  of a person who is resident but  not  ordinarily
\nresident  in the taxable territories unless the business  is
\ncontrolled in India:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that where the profits of a part only of  a
\nbusiness  carried on by a person who is not resident in\t the
\ntaxable territories or not ordinarily so resident accrue  or
\narise  in  the taxable territories or are deemed  under\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax  Act, 1922, so to accrue or\tarise,\tthen
\nexcept where the business being the business of a person who
\nis  resident  but not ordinarily resident,  in\tthe  taxable
\nterritories  is\t controlled in India, this Act\tshall  apply
\nonly  to such part of the business and such part  shall\t for
\nall  the  purposes of this Act be deemed to  be\t a  separate
\nbusiness :\n<\/p>\n
Provided  further  that\t this Act shall\t not  apply  to\t any
\nincome,\t profits  or gains of business accruing\t or  arising
\nwithin\tany part of India to which this Act does not  extend
\nunless such income, profits or gains are received in or\t are
\nbrought\t into  the  taxable territories\t in  any  chargeable
\naccounting period, or are
\nassessable under section 42 of that Act.”\n<\/p>\n
We  have  read\tthe  section  as  it  stands  to-day.\t The
\nexpression  ”  taxable territories ” in\t the  provisoes\t was
\nsubstituted for ” British India ” by the Adaptation of\tLaws
\nOrder,\t1950, and the third proviso originally\treferred  to
\nany income, profits or gains of business accruing or %rising
\nwithin “an Indian State”; then
\n733<\/span>
\nthe expression ” a Part B State ” was substituted, but\tthis
\nwas  again changed by the Adaptation of Laws (No. 3)  Order,
\n1956,  and  the present expression ” any part  of  India  to
\nwhich  this Act does not extend ” was introduced.   For\t the
\npurposes  of this appeal nothing turns upon  these  changes,
\nand  we\t may  read the third proviso  as  referring  to\t any
\nincome,\t profits or gains of a business accruing or  arising
\nin  an\tIndian\tState.\t Section  6  deals  with  relief  on
\noccurrence of ” deficiency of profits ” an expression  which
\nis defined in s. 2(7) of the Act.  The rest of the Act deals
\nwith  matters,\tsuch  as issue\tof  notice  for\t assessment,
\nassessments, profits escaping assessment, penalties, appeal,
\netc.,  with  which  we are not directly\t concerned  in\tthis
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
Now,  ss.  4 and 5 of the Act make it quite clear  that\t the
\nunit of taxation is the business, that is, any busi. ness to
\nwhich the Act applies; and if a person carries on more\tthan
\none  business  to  all of which the  Act  applies,  all\t the
\nbusinesses carried on by the same person shall be treated as
\none business for the purposes of the Act.  Section 5, in its
\nsubstantive  part, states to which business the Act  applies
\nand says that the Act applies to every business of which any
\npart  of the profits made during the  chargeable  accounting
\nperiod\tis  chargeable\tto  income-tax\tby  virtue  of\t the
\nprovisions of sub-cl. (i) or sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (b) of sub-
\ns.  (1) of s. 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,  or\t el.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  of\t that  sub-section.  A reference  to  the  aforesaid
\nprovisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, shows at once
\nthat in so far as they concern the present assessee s. 5  in
\nits  substantive  part\tmakes  the  Act\t applicable  to\t his
\nbusiness  whether  the profits of the  business\t accrued  or
\narose  in India or Baroda ; and this is so in spite  of\t the
\nfact  that the Act extended only to India.  Indeed,  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant has conceded that bad s. 5  stood
\nby itself without any of the provisoes, the Baroda  business
\nof the assessee would have come within the wide ambit of  s.
\n5  and\tthe Act would be applicable to that  business.\t His
\ncontention,  however,  is  that the third  proviso  has\t the
\neffect\tof excluding the Baroda business from the pur.\tview
\nof the Act, except in so far as the income, profits or gains
\nof that business are received or deemed to
\n95<\/span>
\n734<\/span>
\nbe  received  in or brought into India.\t On  behalf  of\t the
\nassessee  the argument is that in its true scope and  effect
\nthe  third  proviso has merely the effect of  exempting\t the
\nincome, profits or gains of the Baroda business except\twhen
\nthey  are received or brought into India, but  the  business
\nitself\tis  not excluded from the purview of  the  Act;\t the
\nbusiness  is  still one to which the Act applies  under\t the
\nsubstantive  part of s. 5 and as the third  proviso  exempts
\nincome,\t profits  or gains only, the losses  of\t the  Baroda
\nbusiness can be set off against the profits of the  business
\nin India.\n<\/p>\n
These  are the two main rival contentions which we  have  to
\nconsider in this appeal.  Now, let us examine a little\tmore
\nclosely ss. 4 and 5 of the Act.\t We have stated earlier that
\ns.  4  is the charging section, which levies a\ttax  on\t the
\namount\tof taxable profits during any chargeable  accounting
\nperiod, in respect of any business to which the Act applies.
\nThe  corresponding  section in the Excess Profits  Tax\tAct,
\n1940,  was  also  s. 4 thereof, which levied a\ttax  on\t the
\namount by which the profits during any chargeable accounting
\nperiod\texceeded  the  standard\t profits  inrespect  of\t any
\nbusiness  to  which  that Act  applied.\t  Under\t the  Excess
\nProfits\t Tax  Act,  1940, as also under the  Act  under\t our
\nconsideration,\tthe unit is the business-business  to  which
\nthe Act applies.  For the application of the Act we have  to
\ngo to s. 5. We have pointed out that s. 5 in its substantive
\npart makes the Act applicable to every business of which any
\npart of the profits is chargeable to income-tax by virtue of
\nthe provisions of sub-cl. (1) or sub-cl. (ii) of el. (b)  of
\nsub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,\tand,
\nthus makes the Act applicable to the Baroda business of\t the
\nassessee.  The question then is-does the third proviso to s.
\n5  exclude  that business except in so far  as\tthe  income,
\nprofits or gains of that business are received or deemed  to
\nbe  received in or are brought into the taxable\t territories
\nin  any chargeable accounting period ? If that is  the\ttrue
\nscope and effect of the third proviso, then the appellant is
\nentitled to succeed.  If, on the contrary, the third proviso
\nmerely\tmakes  the Act inapplicable to\tincome,\t profits  or
\ngains of the Baroda business unless such income, profits  or
\ngains are
\n3<\/span>
\nreceived or deemed to be received in or are brought into the
\ntaxable territories, but does not exclude the business\tfrom
\nthe  purview  of ss. 4 and 5, then the answer given  by\t the
\nHigh Court is correct.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court has stated that whichever view is taken\t the
\nthird  proviso leads to certain difficulties, and in a\tcase
\nwhere  much  can be said on both sides, the benefit  of\t any
\nambiguity  of  language must be given to the  assessee.\t  We
\nagree  with  the High Court that the question is  not  quite
\nfree from difficulty; but on the language of the proviso  as
\nit stands, the answer given by the High Court appears to  us
\nto be the correct answer.\n<\/p>\n
It  is not the case of the appellant that the first and\t the
\nsecond\tprovisoes to s. 5 apply to the facts of\t this  case.
\nBut  it is significant to note the phraseology of these\t two
\nprovisoes  and\tcontrast them with the third  proviso.\t The
\nfirst proviso says:-\n<\/p>\n
” Provided that the Act shall not apply to any business\t the
\nwhole  of the profits of which accrue or arise\twithout\t the
\ntaxable territories, etc.”\n<\/p>\n
The  language  is  clear  enough  to  exclude  the  business
\nreferred to therein from the purview of the Act.  Similarly,
\nthe second proviso excludes under certain circumstances part
\nof  a business and uses appropriate language to give  effect
\nto  that  exclusion.   By a legal fiction  as  it  were,  it
\ndivides\t a  business into two parts, one separate  from\t the
\nother,\tand  makes the Act applicable to one of\t them  only.
\nUnlike\tthe other two provisoes, the third proviso does\t not
\nuse  the language of exclusion in respect of  any  business.
\nWhat  it takes out of the ambit of the Act is merely  the  ”
\nincome,\t profits and gains ” of a particular business.\t The
\nlanguage  is thus more apt to effectuate an  exemption\tfrom
\ntax  of ,income, profits or gains” rather than an  exclusion
\nof  the business from the purview of the Act.  On behalf  of
\nthe  appellant\tit  is contended that  such  a\tconstruction
\nresults in this anomaly that if the income, profits or gains
\nare  not  brought into India, they escape tax  and  yet\t the
\nlosses\tof a business which is outside India are taken\tinto
\nconsideration  in  computing the profits,  etc.,  in  India.
\nThis,  it is argued, could not have been the object  of\t the
\nlegislature in
\n736<\/span>
\nenacting  the  third  proviso to s. 5 of  the  Act.   It  is
\ncontended that the object was to exclude the business in  an
\nIndian\tState as also the income, profits or gains  thereof,
\nunless such profits, etc., were received in or brought\tinto
\nIndia.\t This  argument is not devoid  of  plausibility\t and
\nrequires careful consideration.\n<\/p>\n
We  may here refer to the relevant provisions of the  Excess
\nProfits\t Tax  Act,  1940.   Section 5 of  that\tAct  in\t its
\nsubstantive part and the first and second provisoes  thereto
\nwere worded in identical language, but the third proviso  to
\ns.  5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, was worded  quite
\ndifferently from the third proviso to s. 5 of the Act.\t The
\nthird  proviso to S. 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act,  1940,
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
”  Provided  further that this Act shall not  apply  to\t any
\nbusiness  the whole of the profits of which accrue or  arise
\nin  a  Part B State, and where the profits of a\t part  of  a
\nbusiness accrue or arise in a Part B State, such part shall,
\nfor  the  purposes  of this provision, be  deemed  to  be  a
\nseparate  business the whole of the profits of which  accrue
\nor  arise  in  a Part B State, and the\tother  part  of\t the
\nbusiness shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be  deemed
\nto be a separate business.”\n<\/p>\n
The language used was clearly one of exclusion, and it\tsaid
\nthat  the  Excess Profits Tax Act was not  applicable  to  a
\nbusiness  the profits of which accrued or arose in a Part  B
\nState.\tWhy then did the legislature use different  language
\nin  the third proviso to s. 5 of the Act?  On behalf of\t the
\nappellant it has been submitted that the change in  language
\nis  deliberate and the reason for the change is to make\t the
\nincome, profits or gains of a business accruing in an Indian
\nor  Part B State liable to tax when such income, profits  or
\ngains are brought in India while under the third proviso  to
\na. 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, they were not liable  to
\ntax  even when they were brought into India.  On  behalf  of
\nthe assessee, however, it has been submitted that the change
\nin  language is due to a different reason  altogether.\t The
\nthird  proviso to s. 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act,  1940,
\nand s. 14(2) (c) (now deleted) of the Indian Income-tax Act,
\n1922,  were  enacted at about the same time, and  the  broad
\nobject of both the
\n737<\/span>
\nprovisions was to exclude profits of a business in an Indian
\nor  Part  B State from charge of tax; but under\t the  Excess
\nProfits Tax Act, 1940, such profits were not chargeable even
\nif received in or brought into India whereas under s.  14(2)\n<\/p>\n
(c)  of\t the  Indian  Income-tax  Act  such  profits  became
\nchargeable  to\ttax if received in or  brought\tinto  India.
\nThis  difference, learned counsel for the  assessee  states,
\nwas no doubt done away with by the change in language of the
\nthird proviso to s. 5 of the Act; but the change in language
\ndid  something\tmore, because it  assimilated  the  position
\nunder  the proviso to that under s. 14(2) (c) of the  Indian
\nIncome-tax Act, namely, that though profits of a business in
\nan Indian State cannot be taxed unless they are brought into
\nthe  taxable  territories, yet the losses  incurred  can  be
\nadjusted  in  computing\t the profits of the  business  as  a
\nwhole.\t Learned counsel for the assessee has relied on\t the
\ndecision  of  this  Court  in  Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,
\nMysore, Travancore-Cochin and Coorg v. Indo-Mercantile\tBank
\nLtd.<\/a>  (1)  and\tthe decisions of the Bombay  High  Court  in
\nCommissioner   of  Income-tax,\tBombay\tCity  v.   Murlidhar
\nMathurawalla  Mahajan Association<\/a> (2 ) and  Commissioner  of
\nExcess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Bhogilal H. Patel, Bombay<\/a>
\n(3  ).\tThe first two decisions cited above  considered\t the
\neffect\tof  s.\t24 (1), Indian Income-tax  Act,\t 1922,\twith
\nspecial reference to the first proviso thereto (as it  stood
\nat the time relevant therein) and its impact on s. 10 of the
\nsaid  Act.  It was held that sub-s. (1) of s. 24 dealt\tonly
\nwith  set-off of loss under one head against  profits  under
\nany other head, and therefore the old first proviso to\tsub-
\ns. (1) of s. 24 applied and barred the right of set-off only
\nwhere  a loss in the Indian State was sought to be  set\t off
\nagainst Indian profits under any other head; where, however,
\nthe assessee sought to set off his loss in the Indian  State
\nagainst his Indian profits under the same head, e. g.,\tset-
\noff  of loss incurred in a business carried on in an  Indian
\nState  against the profits of the same or  another  business
\ncarried\t on  in\t India, the proviso did not  apply  and\t the
\nassessee was entitled to such set-off under s. 10
\n(1) [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 256.\t(2) [1948] 16 I.T.R. 146.
\n(3) [1952] 21 I.T.R. 72.\n<\/p>\n
738<\/span><\/p>\n
of  the\t Indian\t Income-tax Act.  Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nassessee has submitted that the same principle applies\twith
\nregard\tto  the third proviso to s. 5 of the  Act.   Learned
\ncounsel\t has  submitted that as under s. 10  of\t the  Indian
\nIncome-tax Act, different businesses constitute one head and
\nin  order to determine what are the profits and gains  of  a
\nbusiness under s. 10 an assessee is entitled to show all his
\nprofits and set off against those profits losses incurred by
\nhim,  in the same head; so also under s. 5 of the  Act,\t the
\nBaroda\tbusiness of the assessee is within the ambit of\t the
\nAct,  though  the  income,  profits  or\t gains\tthereof\t are
\nexcluded  by the third proviso unless they are\treceived  or
\nbrought\t into India.  He has pointed out that  the  position
\nunder  the  Excess  Profits Tax Act was\t different,  as\t was
\nexplained  in  Bhogilal Patel’s case (1) where\tthe  learned
\nChief Justice said:\n<\/p>\n
” This contention of Mr. Kolah is based on the language used
\nin  the proviso, namely, that ‘this Act shall not  apply  to
\nany  business  the whole of the profits of which  accrue  or
\narise  in  an  Indian  State’.\t Now,  this  contention\t  is
\nobviously fallacious, because the proviso does not say\tthat
\nthe  Act shall not apply to the profits of a business  which
\naccrue\tor arise in an Indian State.  What the proviso\tsays
\nis that the Act shall not apply to any business the whole of
\nthe profits of which accrue or arise in an Indian  State.The
\nexpression  “the  whole of the profits of  which  accrue  or
\narise  in an Indian State’ is an expression which  indicates
\nthe  nature  of\t the business which  is\t excluded  from\t the
\npurview or ambit of the Act”.\n<\/p>\n
Now,  the  third  proviso to s. 5 of the Act  uses  not\t the
\nphraseology  of\t the Excess Profits Tax Act,  but  the\tvery
\nphraseology  which  according to the learned  Chief  Justice
\nwould have made all the difference.  Learned counsel for the
\nassessee has argued, and we think it has considerable force,
\nthat  the legislature had before it the language used in  s.
\n14  (2)\t (e) of the Indian Income-tax Act and  it  knew\t the
\neffect of those provisions and it used the same language  in
\nthe third proviso to s. 5 of the Act.  If the object of\t the
\nlegislature  was  to exclude the business  itself  from\t the
\nambit
\n(1)  [1952] 21 I.T.R. 72.\n<\/p>\n
739<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Act while taxing the profits which were brought\tinto
\nthe taxable territories, then it used language which  failed
\nto achieve that object.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the appellant it has been pointed out that\t the
\nexpression  used in the third proviso to s. 5  is  “Provided
\nfurther that the Act shall not apply to any income,  profits
\nor  gains  of  a  business, etc.” It  is  argued  that\tthis
\nlanguage,  (namely, that the Act shall not apply) is apt  to
\nexclude from the purview of the Act business the profits  of
\nwhich  accrue or arise in an Indian State, except in so\t far
\nas  such profits are brought into the  taxable\tterritories.
\nIn support of this argument a reference has been made to  s.
\n4 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act as it stood prior to 1939
\nand  reliance is placed on the decisions in Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax,  Madras  v.\t M.  P.\t T.K. M.  M.  S.  M.  A.  B.
\nSomasundaram  Chettiar<\/a> (1) and” Commissioner of\t Income-tax,
\nBombay\tv. The Provident Investment Co. Ltd.<\/a>(2). It is\ttrue
\nthat s. 4(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, as it stood prior
\nto  1939, said that this Act (meaning the Indian  Income-tax
\nAct,  1922) shall not apply to certain classes of income  “,
\nand  in the two decisions cited it was held that the word  ”
\nbusiness  ”  meant  a  business\t whose\tprofits\t were  being
\nassessed  in the year under consideration and there  was  no
\njustification  for  deduction of the expenses of  a  foreign
\nbusiness.   We\tdo not, however, think that the use  of\t the
\nexpression, ” the Act shall not apply “, is decisive in this
\ncase.\tWe have to read the third proviso as a whole and  in
\nthe context in which it occurs, in order to find out what it
\nmeans.\t So  read it is difficult to hold that\tit  has\t the
\neffect of excluding the Baroda business except in so far  as
\nthe   profits\tthereof\t are  brought\tinto   the   taxable
\nterritories.  What it says in express terms is that the\t Act
\nshall not apply to any income, profits or gains of  business
\naccruing  or arising in an Indian State, etc.  It  does\t not
\nsay that the business itself is excluded from the purview of
\nthe Act.  We have to read and construe the third proviso  in
\nthe  context of the substantive part of s. 5 which takes  in
\nthe  Baroda  business and the phraseology of the  first\t and
\nsecond provisoes thereto, which clearly uses the
\n(1) A. I. R. 1928 Mad. 487.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1931) 1 L. R. 56 Bom. 92.\n<\/p>\n
740<\/span><\/p>\n
language of excluding the business referred to therein.\t The
\nthird  proviso does not use that language and  what  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant is seeking to do is to alter\t the
\nlanguage  of the proviso so as to make it read as though  it
\nexcluded  business  the income’ profits or  gains  of  which
\naccrue or arise in an Indian State.  The difficulty is\tthat
\nthe third proviso does not say so ; on the contrary, it uses
\nlanguage  which merely exempts from tax the income,  profits
\nor  gains unless such income, profits or gains are  received
\nin or brought into India.\n<\/p>\n
Next,  we  have\t to consider  what  the\t expression  income,
\nprofits\t or  gains  ” means.  In the context  of  the  third
\nproviso, it cannot include losses because the latter part of
\nthe proviso says ” unless such income, profits or gains\t are
\nreceived,  etc., into the taxable territories “.  Obviously,
\nlosses cannot be brought into the taxable territories except
\nin an accounting sense, and the expression ” income, profits
\nor  gains  ”  in the context  cannot  include  losses.\t The
\nexpression  must  have\tthe  same  meaning  throughout\t the
\nproviso, and cannot have one meaning in the first part and a
\ndifferent  meaning in the latter part of the  proviso.\t The
\nappellant  cannot  therefore  say  that\t the  third  proviso
\nexcludes the business altogether, because it takes away from
\nthe  ambit of the Act not only income, profits or gains\t but
\nalso losses of the business referred to therein.
\nOn  behalf of the appellant it has been argued\tthat  though
\nthe  language  of the third proviso to s. 5 of\tthe  Act  is
\nsimilar to that of s. 14(2)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act,
\nthe  language of the two provisions is not identical and  it
\nis not correct to say that their effect is substantially the
\nsame.\tIt is pointed out that the language of\ts.  14(2)(c)
\nwas one of exemption only in respect of any income,  profits
\nor gains accruing or arising in an Indian State, though\t for
\npurposes  of  ” total income ” the  Income-tax\tAct  applied
\nthereto,  and  therefore the normal process  of\t aggregating
\nprofits and losses wherever they occurred could be  adopted.
\nBut says learned counsel for the appellant, the position  is
\notherwise  under  the  third proviso to s.  5  of  the\tAct,
\nbecause, firstly, it uses the expression, ” the Act
\n741<\/span>
\nshall  not  apply ” and secondly, there is  no\tquestion  of
\nexempting the profits from tax while including them for\t the
\npurposes of ” total income “. We agree that the complication
\nof  excluding the profits from tax while including them\t for
\ndetermining ” total income ” does not arise under the  third
\nproviso\t to s. 5 of the Act; but the argument  presented  is
\nthe same as we have dealt with earlier.\t The argument merely
\ntakes us back to the question-does the third proviso to B. 5
\nof  the\t Act merely exempt the income, profits or  gains  or
\ndoes it exclude the business?  If it excludes the  business,
\nthe appellant is right in saying that the position under the
\nproviso\t is not the same as under s. 14(2)(c) of the  Indian
\nIncome-tax  Act.   If, on the contrary, the  proviso  merely
\nexempts\t the  income, profits or gains of  the\tbusiness  to
\nwhich  the Act otherwise applies, then the position  is\t the
\nsame as under s. 14(2)(c).  It is perhaps repetition, but we
\nmay  emphasize\tagain that exclusion, if any, must  be\tdone
\nwith  reference to business, which is the unit of  taxation.
\nThe  first  and second provisoes to s. 5 do  that,  but\t the
\nthird proviso does not.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly\tit has been contended that the construction  adopted
\nby  the High Court is likely to lead to\t consequences  which
\nthe  legislature manifestly could not have  intended.\tThis
\ncontention  has been pressed in respect of two matters:\t (a)
\ncomputation of capital under the rules in Schedule 11 of the
\nAct in a case where the assessee company sustains a loss  in
\nan  Indian State; and (b) relief for deficiency\t of  profits
\nwhere  the  assessee makes profits in an  Indian  State\t but
\nsustains  a loss in India.  As to the first matter,  it\t has
\nbeen fully dealt with by the High Court with reference to r.
\n2A  of\tthe  Rules in Schedule 11 and it  has  been  rightly
\npointed\t out that no difficulty really arise,% by reason  of
\nr. 2A.\tNor are we satisfied that any real difficulty arises
\nwith  regard  to relief for deficiency of profits  when\t the
\nassessee  makes\t profits in an Indian State but\t sustains  a
\nloss  in  India.   The Act will not apply  to  such  profits
\nunless they are brought into India, and if they are  brought
\ninto  India., a. 6 will apply with regard to relief  on\t the
\nground of deficiency of profits.\n<\/p>\n
96<\/span>
\n742<\/span><\/p>\n
It   is\t unnecessary  to  consider  here  any\thypothetical
\ndifficulty which may arise in the application of s. 6.
\nThe appellant relies on the third proviso to s. 5 of the Act
\nin  support  of the contention that it excludes\t the  Baroda
\nbusiness  of  the assessee and the losses of  that  business
\ncannot\tbe  set off against the profits of the\tbusiness  in
\nIndia,\tand the appellant can succeed only  on\testablishing
\nthat the proviso clearly and without any ambiguity  excludes
\nthe  Baroda business.  We agree with the High Court that  if
\nthere  is  any ambiguity of language, the  benefit  of\tthat
\nambiguity  must\t be  given to the  assessee.   However,\t the
\nconclusion at which we have arrived is that on the  language
\nof the proviso as it stands, it does not exclude the  Baroda
\nbusiness  of  the  assessee but exempts\t only.\tthe  income,
\nprofits or gains thereof unless they are received or  deemed
\nto  be received in or brought into India.  Accordingly,\t the
\nHigh  Court correctly answered the question of law  referred
\nto it.\tThe appeal falls and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of … vs Karamchand Premchand … on 28 April, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 1175, 1960 SCR (3) 727 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,AHMEDABAD Vs. RESPONDENT: KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND LTD.,AHMEDABAD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/04\/1960 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. KAPUR, J.L. HIDAYATULLAH, M. CITATION: 1960 […]<\/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-6339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of ... vs Karamchand Premchand ... on 28 April, 1960 - 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-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of ... vs Karamchand Premchand ... on 28 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-31T09:54:22+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=\"29 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-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of … vs Karamchand Premchand … on 28 April, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T09:54:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960\"},\"wordCount\":5391,\"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-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of ... vs Karamchand Premchand ... on 28 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T09:54:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of … vs Karamchand Premchand … on 28 April, 1960\"}]},{\"@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 ... vs Karamchand Premchand ... on 28 April, 1960 - 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-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of ... vs Karamchand Premchand ... on 28 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-31T09:54:22+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of … vs Karamchand Premchand … on 28 April, 1960","datePublished":"1960-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T09:54:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960"},"wordCount":5391,"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-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960","name":"Commissioner Of ... vs Karamchand Premchand ... on 28 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T09:54:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-karamchand-premchand-on-28-april-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of … vs Karamchand Premchand … on 28 April, 1960"}]},{"@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\/6339","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=6339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}