{"id":89150,"date":"1966-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2"},"modified":"2015-06-05T23:35:40","modified_gmt":"2015-06-05T18:05:40","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 853, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 943<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRITHVI INSURANCE CO.  LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/10\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  853\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 943\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1969 SC 946\t (7)\n F\t    1970 SC1379\t (3,5)\n R\t    1978 SC1320\t (11,14,16)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tIncome-tax  Act, 1922,\ts.  24(2)-Insurance  company\ncarrying  on  life  insurance business as  well\t as  general\ninsurance business-Such businesses whether one business\t for\npurpose of section.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t company  carried on business  of  life\t and\ngeneral\t insurance.  In assessment proceedings for the\tyear\n1951-52, the Income-tax Officer held that the life insurance\nbusiness  and the general insurance business carried  on  by\nthe  company  were  'distinct and  separate'  and  the\tloss\ncarried\t forward from the Previous year in respect  of\tlife\ninsurance  business  could  not be set off  under  s.  24(2)\nagainst the profit from the general insurance business.\t The\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal  confirmed\nthe view of the Income-tax Officer.  The Tribunal based\t its\ndecision  primarily on the provisions of the Income-tax\t Act\nwhich  provided\t different  methods of\tcomputation  of\t the\ntaxable\t income\t of life insurance business and\t of  general\ninsurance business.  In reference the High Court decided  in\nfavour\tof the company, and the Revenue appealed.  The\ttest\nsuggested  on behalf of the Revenue for determining  whether\nthe  two businesses were one business within the meaning  of\ns.  24(2)  was whether one of them could be  closed  without\naffecting the conduct of the other.\nHELD : (i) The test suggested on behalf of the Revenue could\nnot  be\t accepted.  If one business cannot  conveniently  be\ncarried on after the closure of the other, there would be -a\nstrong indication that the two business constitute \"the same\nbusiness\",  but no decisive inference may be drawn from\t the\nfact  that  after the closure of one  business\tanother\t may\nconveniently be carried on. [948 D]\n(ii) Whether  two or more lines of business may be  regarded\nas  the\t \"same business\" or different business\tdepends\t not\nupon  the special methods prescribed by the  Income-tax\t Act\nfor  computation of the taxable income, but upon the  nature\nof the lines of business, the nature of their  organisation,\nmanagement, the source of the capital fund utilised, methods\nof  book keeping and a host of other  related  circumstances\nwhich stamp the lines of business as same or distinct.\t[947\nH]\nScales v. George Thompson & Co. Ltd., 13 T.C. 89,  'referred\nto.\n(iii)\t  In  the present case there was little\t doubt\tthat\nthe two businesses constituted one composite business :\t the\ncompany was entitled to carry on the life insurance business\nand  the general insurance business under its Memorandum  of\nAssociation, and the business were attended to by the Branch\nManager\t and the Agents without any distinction,  there\t was\none  common  administrative Organisation  and  the  expenses\nincurred in connection with business both for administration\nand  for heads of expenditure such -as salary of the  staff,\npostage,  staff\t welfare  fund\tand  general  charges,\twere\ncommon. [948 B]\nThe High Court was therefore fight in holding that the\tlife\ninsurance  business  and  the  general\tinsurance   business\nconstituted the same business within the meaning of s. 24(2)\nof the Act. [949 B]\n944\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos. 729-732  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nMay 3, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 196  of
\n1960.\n<\/p>\n
R.   M. Hazarnavis, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for\t the
\nappellant (in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
S.   Swaminathan  and M. S. Narasimhan, for  the  respondent
\n(in all the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J. The respondent, a public limited company,  carried
\non  in the relevant years of account business of  insurance-
\nlife  and  general.  In each of the calendar years  1944  to
\n1948  relating to the assessment years 1945-46\tto  1950-51,
\nthe Company suffered loss in the life insurance section, and
\nmade  profit  in the general insurance\tsection.   Till\t the
\nassessment  year  1950-51  the loss  suffered  in  the\tlife
\ninsurance section was allowed by the Revenue authorities  to
\nbe carried forward and set off under s. 24(2) of the  Indian
\nIncome-tax  Act,  1922,\t against profits  from\tthe  general
\ninsurance  section in the subsequent year.   In\t proceedings
\nfor  assessment for the assessment year 1951-52 the  Income-
\ntax  Officer held that the life insurance business  and\t the
\ngeneral\t insurance business carried on by the  Company\twere
\n‘,’distinct and separate” and the loss carried forward\tfrom
\nthe  previous  year in respect of  life\t insurance  business
\ncould  not be set off under s. 24(2) against the  profit  of
\nthe  general  insurance business.  The\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner  and  the Tribunal confirmed the  view  of\t the
\nIncometax  Officer.   The Tribunal  referred  the  following
\nquestion  to the High Court of Madras under s. 66(1) of\t the
\nIncome-tax Act:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether the unabsorbed losses incurred by the
\n\t      assesse’e\t in  the earlier years in  its\tlife
\n\t      insurance business are available to be set off
\n\t      against  its  profits from  general  insurance
\n\t      business\tfor the assessment years 1951-52  to
\n\t      1954-55?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High  Court answered the question in  the\taffirmative.
\nWith  certificate granted by the High Court,  these  appeals
\nhave been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
\nThe  order of the Income-tax Appellate\tTribunal  summarises
\nthe reasons which persuaded the Departmental authorities  to
\nreject the claim of the Company.  The Tribunal states:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  business  of  life\tinsurance  possesses
\n\t      peculiar characteristics which do not exist in
\n\t      respect\tof   other   insurance\t businesses.
\n\t      Firstly,\tthe life insurance policies are\t not
\n\t      contracts\t of  indemnity; they  are  forms  of
\n\t      investments.    Other  classes  of   insurance
\n\t      business are contracts of in-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      945<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      demnity.\t  Secondly,  the  contract  in\t the
\n\t      general insurance is generally annual while in
\n\t      the  case of life business the risk  continues
\n\t      until  death.  Unlike general  insurance\tcon-
\n\t      tracts,  the life contract, is made  once\t and
\n\t      for all.\tThe general insurance contracts, are
\n\t      in  law, fresh contracts entered into  at\t the
\n\t      time of each renewal.  Thirdly, life  business
\n\t      is   controlled  by   principles\t essentially
\n\t      variant  from those which control the  general
\n\t      insurance business.  Fourthly, the life premia
\n\t      do not represent the life profits nor can\t the
\n\t      total amount of claims arising in one year  be
\n\t      set  off\tas a deduction.\t  Fifthly,  the\t law
\n\t      under  which  life business is carried  on  is
\n\t      quite   different\t from  the  laws   governing
\n\t      general\tbusiness’  and\tlastly,\t  assessable
\n\t      profits  of  life business shall\tbe  computed
\n\t      separately from those of the general business,
\n\t      the  consequence\tof which would be  that\t the
\n\t      carry forward of loss of life business cannot-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      be   had\t against  the  profit\tof   general
\n\t      business.”‘
\nTax payable by an assessee under the head “Profits and gains
\nof  business, profession or vocation” is  normally  computed
\nunder  s.  10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922,  after  making
\nallowances mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 10.  But sub-s. (7)
\nof  s.\t10  provides that notwithstanding  anything  to\t the
\ncontrary contained in ss. 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18 of the Act, the
\nprofits\t and gains of any business of insurance and the\t tax
\npayable\t thereon shall be computed in,, accordance with\t the
\nrules contained in the Schedule to the Act.  The Schedule is
\nheaded “Rules for the computation of the Profits. and  Gains
\nof  Insurance Business”.  By r.\t it is provided that in\t the
\ncase  of  any person who carries on, or at any time  in\t the
\npreceding  year\t carried on, life  insurance  business,\t the
\nprofits and gains of such person from that business shall be
\ncomputed  separately from his income, profits or gains\tfrom
\nany other business.  By r. 2 it is, provided:
\n“The  profits and gains of life insurance shall-be taken  be
\nto either:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   the\t gross\texternal  incoming  of\t the
\n\t      preceding\t year from, that business  less\t the
\n\t      management expenses of that year, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t  annual  average  of  the   surplus
\n\t      arrived\tat  by\tadjusting  the\tsurplus\t  or
\n\t      deficit, disclosed by the actuarial  valuation
\n\t      made  in\taccordance with the  insurance\tAct,
\n\t      1938  (IV\t of 1938), in respect  of  the\tlast
\n\t      ‘inter-valuation period ending before the year
\n\t      for which the assessment is to be made, so  as
\n\t      to  exclude  from it any\tsurplus\t or  deficit
\n\t      included therein which was made in any earlier
\n\t      inter-valuation  period  and  any\t expenditure
\n\t      other than expenditure which may.,
\n\t      946<\/span>
\n\t      under the provisions of section 10 of this Act
\n\t      be  allowed for the computing the profits\t and
\n\t      gains of a business, whichever is the greater:
\n\t      Provided…………………………..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rules 3 and 4 lay down the methods of computing the  surplus
\nfor  the  purpose of T. 2.  Rule 5 is a\t definition  clause.
\nRule  6 deals with the computation of profits and  gains  of
\nany  business  of insurance other than life  insurance,\t and
\nprovides  that\tthe  profits and gains of  any\tbusiness  of
\ninsurance other than life insurance shall be taken to be the
\nbalance\t of  the profits disclosed by the  annual  accounts,
\ncopies of which are required under the Insurance Act,  1938,
\nto  be\tfurnished  to  the  Controller\tof  Insurance  after
\nadjusting  such\t balance  so  as  to  exclude  from  it\t any
\nexpenditure  other  than  expenditure which  may  under\t the
\nprovisions  of S. 10 of the Act be allowed for in  computing
\nthe profits and gains of a business.  Rule 7 deals with\t the
\ncomputation  of profits and gains of companies\tcarrying  on
\ndividing  societies  or assessment business.  Rule  8  deals
\nwith  the computation of profits of  non-resident  insurance
\ncompanies having branches in the taxable territory.  Rule  9
\nprovides  that the profits of any business carried on  by  a
\nmutual\tinsurance association or by a  co-operative  society
\nshall be computed in accordance with the rules.
\nComputation of the assessable income of an assessee carrying
\non  business  of  life insurance or  general  insurance\t has
\ntherefore to be made in accordance with the rules and not by
\ndetermining  the  profits under sub-s. (1) of  S.  10  after
\nmaking allowances under sub-s. (2).\n<\/p>\n
Where an assessee sustains a loss of profits or gains in any
\nyear  under  any  of  the heads mentioned in  s.  6,  he  is
\nentitled to have the amount of the loss set off against\t his
\nincome, profits or gains under any other head in that  year:
\n[s.  24(1)].  Therefore in determining the taxable  profits,
\nthe net balance under the same head mentioned in s. 6 has to
\nbe taken into account, and if there be loss under a head  of
\nincome\t(subject  to  the  special  exception  relating\t  to
\nadmissibility of loss from speculative business), that\tloss
\nhas to be set off against the income, profits or gains under
\nany other head.\t Sub-s. (1) does not however deal with carry
\nforward\t to  the  following year of  loss  suffered  by\t the
\nassessee as a result of computing ,the total income from all
\nthe heads.  That is dealt with under sub-s.\n<\/p>\n
(2).\t  Section  24(2)  as it stood at the  material\ttime
\nprovided:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where any assessee sustains a loss of profits
\n\t      or  gains in any year, being a  previous\tyear
\n\t      not  earlier  than the previous year  for\t the
\n\t      assessment for the year ending on the 31st day
\n\t      of March, 1940, in any business, profession or
\n\t      vocation,\t and the loss cannot be\t wholly\t set
\n\t      off under sub-section (1),
\n\t      947<\/span>
\n\t      so  much of the loss as is not so set  off  or
\n\t      the whole loss where the assessee had no other
\n\t      head of income shall be carried forward to the
\n\t      following year and set off against the profits
\n\t      and  gains, if any, of the assessee  from\t the
\n\t      same business, profession or vocation for that
\n\t      year;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  words  italicised were substituted by  the\t Income\t Tax
\nAmendment  Act\t25 of 1953, for the words  “under  the\thead
\nProfits and gains of business, profession or vocation”‘, and
\n“the portion not so set off ” respectively.  At the relevant
\ntime loss which could not be set off in the year of  account
\nmay  be carried forward to the following year, but it  could
\nbe  set\t off against the profits and gains of  the  assessee
\nfrom  “the same business, profession or vocation”.   If\t the
\nloss carried forward from the previous year and sought to be
\nset  off  was  not from the  same  business,  profession  or
\nvocation, it could not be set off under s. 24(2).  If  there
\nwas  no\t income\t or profits from the same  business  in\t the
\nsubsequent year the loss could not be set off, but had to be
\ncarried\t forward in the next year following, subject to\t the
\nrestriction placed in that sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
The question whether the business of life insurance and\t the
\nbusiness of general insurance could be regarded as the\tsame
\nbusiness assumes importance in this case, since the right to
\ncarry  forward\tthe  loss suffered  in\tthe  life  insurance
\nbusiness and to set it off against the profit of the company
\nin the general insurance business of the subsequent year  is
\nclearly\t in issue.  If the life insurance business  and\t the
\ngeneral\t insurance  business were not  “the  same  business”
\nwithin\tthe meaning of s. 24(2), loss in the life  insurance
\nbusiness  which\t could not be set off  against\tincome\tfrom
\nother businesses of the Company and sources of income, could
\nnot  be\t carried forward and set off in the  year  following
\nagainst the income from the general insurance business.
\nCounsel\t for the Commissioner contended that life  insurance
\nbusiness  and  general\tinsurance  business  were   separate
\nbusinesses  and\t he  relied in support\tof  that  contention
\nprimarily  upon the method of computation of taxable  income
\nof the life insurance business and of the general  insurance
\nbusiness.   Both in respect of the life\t insurance  business
\nand  general  insurance\t business,  there  are,\t as  already
\nmentioned,  special methods of computation of  income.\t But
\nbecause there are distinct methods of computation of taxable
\nincome of the insurance business, and the general provisions
\nof the Income-tax Act relating to computation of profits and
\ngains  of a business in s. 10 and the related  sections\t are
\ninapplicable,  it  does not follow that the  two  businesses
\ncannot\tbe  the “same ‘business” within the  meaning  of  s.
\n24(2).\t Whether  two  or more lines of\t businesses  may  be
\nregarded  as  the “same business”  or  different  businesses
\ndepends not upon’ the special, methods pres-\n<\/p>\n
948<\/span><\/p>\n
cribed by the Income-tax Act for computation of the  taxable
\nincome, but upon the nature of the businesses, the nature of
\ntheir  organisation, management, the source of\tthe  capital
\nfund  utilised, methods of book-keeping and a host of  other
\nrelated circumstances which stamp the businesses as same  or
\ndistinct.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t present case, there is little doubt  that  the\t two
\nbusinesses  constituted one composite business: the  Company
\nwas entitled to carry on the life insurance business and the
\ngeneral\t  insurance   business\tunder  its   Memorandum\t  of
\nAssociation,  and  the businesses were attended\t to  by\t the
\nBranch\tManagers  and the Agents  without  any\tdistinction,
\nthere  was  one common administrative organization  and\t the
\nexpenses  incurred in connection with the business both\t for
\nadministration\tand for heads of expenditure such as  salary
\nof  the\t staff,\t postage, staff\t welfare  fund\tand  general
\ncharges, were common.\n<\/p>\n
We  are\t unable to agree with counsel for  the\tCommissioner
\nthat  the test whether one of the businesses can  be  closed
\nwithout\t affecting the conduct of the other business,  is  a
\ndecisive test in determining whether the two constitute\t the
\nsame  business\twithin\tthe meaning of\ts.  24(2).   If\t one
\nbusiness cannot conveniently be carried on after the closure
\nof  the other, there would be a strong indication  that\t the
\ntwo  businesses\t constitute  “the  same\t business”,  but  no
\ndecisive inference may be drawn from the fact that after the
\nclosure of one business another may conveniently be  carried
\non.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t present case the Tribunal’s judgment  proceeds\t not
\nupon  any  special circumstances governing  the\t distinctive
\norganization,  management, account, methods of\tbook-keeping
\nor  the peculiarities of the two businesses,  but  primarily
\nupon  the  provisions of the Income-tax\t Act  which  provide
\ndifferent  methods of computation of the taxable  income  of
\nthe  life insurance business and- of the  general  insurance
\nbusiness.   We are unable to agree with the  Tribunal,\tthat
\nbecause\t in  respect  of the  life  insurance  business\t and
\ngeneral\t insurance  business there are\tspecial\t methods  of
\ncomputation of income for the purpose of levying income-tax,
\nthey  are not the “same business” within the meaning  of  s.
\n24(2).\t A fairly adequate test for determining whether\t the
\ntwo  constitute\t the  same business  is\t furnished  by\twhat
\nRowlatt, J. said in Scales v. George Thompson & Co. Ltd:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Was    there   any   inter-connection,\t any
\n\t      interlacing,  any inter-dependence, any  unity
\n\t      at all embracing those two businesses ?”\n<\/p>\n
That  inter-connection,\t interlacing,  inter-dependence\t and
\nunity are furnished in this case by the existence of  common
\nmanagement,
\n(1)  13 T.C. 83, 89.\n<\/p>\n
949<\/span><\/p>\n
common business Organisation, common administration,  common
\nfund and a common place of business.\n<\/p>\n
in  our view therefore the High Court was right in’  holding
\nthat  the life insurance business and the general  insurance
\nbusiness constitute the same business within the meaning  of
\ns. 24(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeals  therefore fail and are dismissed\twith  costs.
\nOne hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
950<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 853, 1967 SCR (1) 943 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: PRITHVI INSURANCE CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/10\/1966 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. […]<\/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-89150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2\" \/>\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 Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966 - 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-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-05T18:05:40+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=\"14 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-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T18:05:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2\"},\"wordCount\":2258,\"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-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T18:05:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 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":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-05T18:05:40+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966","datePublished":"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T18:05:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2"},"wordCount":2258,"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-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T18:05:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-prithvi-insurance-co-ltd-on-26-october-1966-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Prithvi Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 October, 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\/89150","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=89150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}