{"id":72469,"date":"1966-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966"},"modified":"2017-02-02T08:54:59","modified_gmt":"2017-02-02T03:24:59","slug":"sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966","title":{"rendered":"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 4 January, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 4 January, 1966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1552, \t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 193<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSIR HUKUMCHAND &amp; MANNALAL CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/01\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1552\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 193\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax  Act (11 of 1922), s. 26A and  Income-tax  Rules,\nrr.  6A\t and  6B--Order\t of  cancellation  under  r.   6B-If\nappealable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe Income,-tax Officer cancelled the certificate of renewal\nof  registration of the appellant-firm, under r. 6B  of\t the\nIncome-tax  Rules,  on the ground that the firm\t was  not  a\ngenuine\t one.\tThe Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner,\t the\nTribunal  and  the  High Court on reference,  held  that  no\nappeal\tlay against the order of the Income-tax\t Officer  to\nthe  Appellate Assistant Commissioner under s. 30(1) of\t the\nIncome-tax Act, 1922.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  :The words \"refusal to register a firm\" in s.  30\t are\nwide  enough to take in the orders made under rr. 6A and  6B\nrefusing  to  renew  registration and  also  cancelling\t the\ncertificate so renewed, and such an order directly  attracts\nthe  appellate\tjurisdiction  conferred\t on  the   Appellate\nAssistant Commissioner under the section. [196 E; 197 F]\nThe  fact  that\t s. 30 provides\t for  an  appeal  separately\nagainst\t the  orders  under s. 23  (4)\teither\trefusing  to\nregister  a firm or cancelling the registration of  a  firm,\nbut  provides in the context of s. 26A, for an\tappeal\tonly\nagainst\t an  order refusing to register the firm,  does\t not\naffect\tthis  construction  of s. 30, because,\twhen  s.  30\nprovides for an appeal against the orders under s. 23(4), it\nhas merely incorporated the two forms of orders embodied  in\ns.  23(4), and, when it provides for an appeal\tagainst\t the\norder  under  s. 26A, it has used a general  word,  for\t the\nnature\tof  the order under s. 26A is not described  but  is\nleft  to  be prescribed under the  Rules.   The\t application\nunder  s. 26A made to the Income-tax Officer on behalf of  a\nfirm  for registration for the purposes of the Act, will  be\ndisposed  of  in  the manner prescribed by rr.\t6A  and\t 6B.\nUnder  these Rules, the Income-tax Officer is authorised  to\nmake  three  kinds of orders, namely, (i) he can  refuse  to\nrenew  the registration; (ii) he can register; and (iii)  he\ncan cancel the renewal if he is satisfied that a renewal was\nobtained  without there being a genuine firm  in  existence.\nBut  the  three\t kinds\tof  orders,  having  regard  to\t the\ncircumstances  of  each\t case,\twill  be  made\tonly  on  an\napplication for renewal of registration, because, the  Rules\ndo   not   provide  for\t independent  proceedings   to\t the\ncancellation  of the renewed certificate.  When the  Income-\ntax Officer cancels a renewed certificate, he sets aside his\nearlier\t order and refuses a renewal, with the result  that,\nan  order  of refusal to renew a certificate and  the  order\ncancelling  the\t renewed  certificate  are  given  the\tsame\neffect, namely, refusal of the application to register.\t  It\nfollows\t that the order cancelling registration\t is  nothing\nmore than refusing to renew the certificate of registration.\n[196 A-E: 197 C-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 223 of 1965.<br \/>\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated February 23,\t1962<br \/>\nof  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.  Civil  Case\t No.<br \/>\n165 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">194<\/span><\/p>\n<p>N. A. Palkhivala, S. T. Desai, T.A. Ramachandran, J. B.<br \/>\nDadachanji, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. H. Dhebar, N. D. Karkhanis and<br \/>\nR.   N. Sachthey, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSubba  Rao,  J.\t This appeal, on a  certificate\t granted  by<br \/>\nthe  Madhya Pradesh High Court, raises the question  whether<br \/>\nan appeal lies under s. 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax\tAct,<br \/>\n1922, hereinafter called the Act, to the Appellate Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner  against  the order of  an\t Income-tax  Officer<br \/>\ncancelling an order granting registration of a firm under S.<br \/>\n26-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  facts  material for the said question  may\t be  briefly<br \/>\nstated.\t The appellant is a firm constituted under a deed of<br \/>\npartnership  dated  July 16, 1948.  The\t Income-tax  Officer<br \/>\nregistered  the said firm under s. 26-A of the Act  for\t the<br \/>\nyear  1950-51.\tThe registration was renewed for  the  years<br \/>\n1951-52\t and 1952-53.  On November 30, 1957, the  Income-tax<br \/>\nOfficer\t renewed  the registration for the  assessment\tyear<br \/>\n1953-54.  On March 6, 1959, on the ground that the firm\t was<br \/>\nnot   a\t genuine  one,\tthe  said  officer   cancelled\t the<br \/>\nregistration  under Rule 6-B of the Income-tax\tRules.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  preferred  an appeal against that  order  to\t the<br \/>\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner, Indore.  On July 15, 1959,<br \/>\nthe said Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal for\t the<br \/>\nreason\tthat no appeal lay against the order of the  Income-<br \/>\ntax  Officer cancelling the registration.  The appeal  filed<br \/>\nby  the\t appellant  against that  order\t to  the  Income-tax<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal, Bombay, was dismissed.  At the  instance<br \/>\nof the appellant, the following question was referred to the<br \/>\nHigh Court under s. 66(1) of the Act :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Whether on the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\n\t      case,  the  order\t passed\t by  the  Income-tax<br \/>\n\t      Officer  under Rule 6-B of the Indian  Income-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      tax   Rules  cancelling  the  certificate\t  of<br \/>\n\t      renewal\tof  registration  granted   to\t the<br \/>\n\t      assessee is appealable under section 30 of the<br \/>\n\t      Income-tax Act.,,<br \/>\nA Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh answer-<br \/>\ned  the\t reference against the appellant.  It held  that  no<br \/>\nappeal\tlay under s. 30 of the Act against the order of\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Officer cancelling registration to the  Appellate<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner.\t Hence the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">195<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  only  question  in this appeal  is,  whether  an  order<br \/>\ncancelling  the certificate of renewal of registration\tmade<br \/>\nunder s. 26-A of the Act by an Income-tax Officer is subject<br \/>\nto  an\tappeal\tunder s. 30(1) to  the\tAppellate  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner.  At the outset, the relevant provisions may be<br \/>\nusefully read<br \/>\n\t      Section  26-A. (1) Application may be made  to<br \/>\n\t      the Income-tax Officer on behalf of any  firm,<br \/>\n\t      constituted under an instrument of partnership<br \/>\n\t      specifying   the\tindividual  shares  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      partners, for registration for the purposes of<br \/>\n\t      this  Act and of any other enactment  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      time being in force relating to income-tax  or<br \/>\n\t      super-tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (2)   The\t application shall be made  by\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      person or persons, and at such times and shall<br \/>\n\t      contain such particulars and shall be in\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      form,  and be verified in such manner, as\t may<br \/>\n\t      be  prescribed and it shall be dealt  with  by<br \/>\n\t      the  Income-tax Officer in such manner as\t may<br \/>\n\t      be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      Rule  6.\tAny firm to, whom a  certificate  of<br \/>\n\t      registration has been granted under Rule 4 may<br \/>\n\t      apply  to the Income-tax Officer to  have\t the<br \/>\n\t      certificate  of  registration  renewed  for  a<br \/>\n\t      subsequent year<br \/>\n\t      Rule 6-A.\t On receipt of an application  under<br \/>\n\t      Rule  6 the Income-tax Officer may, if  he  is<br \/>\n\t      satisfied that the application is in order and<br \/>\n\t      that  there,  is or was a\t firm  in  existence<br \/>\n\t      constituted  as  shown in\t the  Instrument  of<br \/>\n\t      Partnership,   grant   to\t  the\tassessee   a<br \/>\n\t      certificate  signed  and dated by him  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      following form:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      Rule  6-B.   In the event\t of  the  Income-tax<br \/>\n\t      Officer  being satisfied that the\t certificate<br \/>\n\t      granted  under Rule 4, or under Rule 6-A,\t has<br \/>\n\t      been  obtained without there being  a  genuine<br \/>\n\t      firm in existence, he may cancel the<br \/>\n\t      Section 30. (1) Any assessee objecting to\t the<br \/>\n\t      cancellation  by an Income-tax Officer of\t the<br \/>\n\t      registration  of a firm under sub-section\t (4)<br \/>\n\t      of  section 23 or to a refusal to\t register  a<br \/>\n\t      firm  under sub-section (4) of section  23  or<br \/>\n\t      section  26-A  may  appeal  to  the  Appellate<br \/>\n\t      Assistant Commissioner against the  assessment<br \/>\n\t      or against such refusal or order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">196<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  gist  of the said provisions relevant  to\tthe  present<br \/>\nenquiry\t may  be stated thus : Under s. 26-A of the  Act  an<br \/>\napplication may be made to the Income-tax Officer on  behalf<br \/>\nof  a  firm for registration for the purposes  of  the\tAct.<br \/>\nSuch  an application has to be filed and disposed of in\t the<br \/>\nmanner\t prescribed  in\t the  Act.   Under  the\t Rules,\t  an<br \/>\napplication for the renewal of registration of a firm  which<br \/>\nhas already been registered in the previous years has to  be<br \/>\nfiled before the Income-tax Officer.  That application\twill<br \/>\nbe disposed of in the manner prescribed by Rules 6-A and  6-<br \/>\nB.  Under those rules, the Income-tax Officer is  authorized<br \/>\nto  make three kinds of orders, viz., (i) he can  refuse  to<br \/>\nrenew the registration of the firm; (ii) he can register the<br \/>\nfirm; and (iii) he can cancel the renewal of registration if<br \/>\nhe  is satisfied that the renewal has been obtained  without<br \/>\nthere being a genuine firm in existence.  The crucial  point<br \/>\nto be noticed is that the said three kinds of orders, having<br \/>\nregard to the circumstances of each case, will be made\tonly<br \/>\nin  the application for renewal of registration.  The  Rules<br \/>\ndo  not provide for independent proceedings for the  cancel-<br \/>\nlation\tof the renewed certificate.  In effect, the  Income-<br \/>\ntax  Officer,  after setting aside his earlier\twrong  order<br \/>\nmade  under  a\tmisapprehension,  refuses  renewal  of\t the<br \/>\ncertificate  of\t registration.\tIf so, it follows  that\t the<br \/>\norder cancelling registration is nothing more than  refusing<br \/>\nto  renew the certificate of registration.  If that  be\t the<br \/>\nconstruction of an order made cancelling the certificate re-<br \/>\nnewed,\tsuch  an  order\t directly  attracts  the   appellate<br \/>\njurisdiction   conferred   on\tthe   Appellate\t   Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner under s. 30 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>But  Mr.  Viswanatha Sastry for the Revenue  contended\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was internal evidence in s. 30 of the Act  itself  to<br \/>\nshow that such a construction was not possible.\t He  further<br \/>\nargued that under the Income-tax law there was no scope\t for<br \/>\nequitable  considerations, and under the express  provisions<br \/>\nof  s. 30 no appeal Jay against the order of the  Income-tax<br \/>\nOfficer\t cancelling  the certificate  of  registration.\t  In<br \/>\nsupport of his contention he relied upon that part of s.  30<br \/>\nof  the\t Act which we have extracted earlier  and  contended<br \/>\nthat when the Legislature in the context of the orders\tmade<br \/>\nunder  s.  23  (4) spoke separately of\tthe  order  of\tcan-<br \/>\ncellation of registration of a firm and an order refusing to<br \/>\nregister  a firm and in the same section, in the context  of<br \/>\ns.  26-A, it mentioned only refusal to register a  firm,  it<br \/>\nclearly expressed its mind that in the former case an appeal<br \/>\nwould  lie  against both the orders, whereas in\t the  latter<br \/>\ncase  an  appeal would lie only against one of\tthe  orders.<br \/>\nThere is some force in this argument.  But a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">197<\/span><br \/>\ncareful\t reading of the provisions of s. 23 (4) and s.\t26-A<br \/>\nbrings\tout the difference in the phraseology used in s.  30<br \/>\nin the matter of appeals against orders made under the\tsaid<br \/>\ntwo  sections.\tThe relevant parts of s. 23 (4) and s.\t26-A<br \/>\n(2) may be placed in juxtaposition :\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 23(4)\t\t\t       Section 26-A(2)<br \/>\nbe&#8230;&#8230; dealt the case of a firm, may refuse to with by the<br \/>\nIncome-tax  Officer  in\t register  it  or  may\tcancel\t its<br \/>\nregistration such manner as may be prescribed. ration if  it<br \/>\nis already registered.\n<\/p>\n<p>A  comparative\tstudy  of the relevant parts  of  these\t two<br \/>\nprovisions  at once shows the distinction between  the\ttwo.<br \/>\nUnder  s.  23(4) while the Income-tax Officer  can  make  an<br \/>\norder  refusing\t to  register  a  firm\tor  may\t cancel\t the<br \/>\nregistration  if it is already registered, under s.  26-A(2)<br \/>\nhe  can\t only  make  an\t order in  such\t manner\t as  may  be<br \/>\nprescribed.   The  manner  prescribed, as  we  have  already<br \/>\nindicated  earlier,  provides for three different  kinds  of<br \/>\norders\tto be made in the same application with\t the  result<br \/>\nthat  an  order of refusal to renew a  certificate  and\t the<br \/>\norder cancelling the certificate renewed are given the\tsame<br \/>\neffect,\t namely,  refusal of the  application  to  register.<br \/>\nThat  apart, when s. 30 provides for an appeal\tagainst\t the<br \/>\norders under s. 23(4) and also against orders under s. 26-A,<br \/>\nit  has\t   incorporated the two forms of orders embodied  in<br \/>\ns.    23(4)  and used a general word in providing an  appeal<br \/>\nagainst\t an order under s. 26-A, for the nature of order  is<br \/>\nnot described but left to be prescribed under the Rules.<br \/>\nIf  so,\t it follows that the words &#8220;refusal  to\t register  a<br \/>\nfirm!&#8217;\tin s. 30 of the Act are wide enough to take  in\t the<br \/>\norders\tmade  under rr. 6-A and 6-B refusing  to  renew\t the<br \/>\nregistration and also cancelling the certificate so renewed.<br \/>\nBy  so holding we are not unaware that equity has no  place,<br \/>\nin construing the provisions of the Income-tax Act.  Indeed,<br \/>\nwe  have not introduced any equitable consideration  in\t the<br \/>\nmatter of construction.\t We have come to the conclusion on a<br \/>\nfair  reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and\t the<br \/>\nRules made thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t result, we answer the question propounded  for\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court&#8217;s decision in the affirmative.  The order of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  is\t set aside and the appeal  is  allowed\twith<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">198<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 4 January, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1552, 1966 SCR (3) 193 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: SIR HUKUMCHAND &amp; MANNALAL CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/01\/1966 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, [&hellip;]<\/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-72469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-02T03:24:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 4 January, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T03:24:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966\"},\"wordCount\":1615,\"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\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966\",\"name\":\"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T03:24:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 4 January, 1966\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-02T03:24:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 4 January, 1966","datePublished":"1966-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T03:24:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966"},"wordCount":1615,"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\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966","name":"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 4 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T03:24:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sir-hukumchand-mannalal-co-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-4-january-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sir Hukumchand &amp; Mannalal Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 4 January, 1966"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72469","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=72469"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72469\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}