Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. versus GAPPUMAL KANHALYA LAL
- Decided
- 26 May 1950
- Judges listed
- M. PATANJALI SASTRI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1950] 1 S.C.R. 563 · 1950 INSC 19
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
MEHR CH~ND MAHAJAN ).-This appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 31st August, 1944, raises the same Qoints as have been discussed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of .1949 ( The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred four questions · to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under section 66 ( 1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. These questions related to the year of assessment 1939-40. The High Court answered two of the questions in the affirmative and two in the negative. The two questions relating to the appeal are those that were answered in the affirmative and are as follows :-
p. 564
"Whethe1 ( 1) the amount of house-tax and (2) the amount of water-tax, imposed by the Municipal Board of Allahabad under section 128, sub-section ( l) clauses (i) and (x), respectively of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, and paid by the owner as a lessor under section 149 of that Act should be deducted as an allowance from the bona fide annual value of the property determined under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of secticm (9) of the Act, on the ground that such amount is an annual charge, which is not a capital charge to which the property is subject within the meaning of clause (iv) of sub-section ( 1) of section o of the Al:t."
p. 564
eo. I~.
p. 564
Under section 128 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, the municipality can. impose a tax :in the whole or any part of the municipality on the annual value of buildings or Janel or of both, and a water-tax on the annual value of buildings or land or both. Every such tax on the annual value of buildings or land or both is leviable on the actual occupier of the property upon which the said taxes are assessed,. if he is the owner of the buildings or lands or holds them on a building or other lease from the Crown or from the Board, or on a building lease from any person. In any other case the tax ·is leviable from the lessor, if the property is let (vide sectfon 149). Section 177 enacts that all sums due on account of· a tax imposed on the annual vall!e of buildings or lands or both shall 'Subject to the prior payment of the l~nd revenue, if any, due to His Majesty thereupon, be a first charge upon such buildings or lands. · ·
p. 565
It is apparent therefore that die prov1S1ons of the United Provinces Act in respect of the levy of the taxes :are substantially similar to the provisions of the Bombay Act discussed in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1949 ( For the reasons given in that appeal and as a result of that decision this appeal stands dismissed with com and we consider that the High Court of Allahabad has answered the questions above mentioned correctly.
p. 565, margin D
Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: P. A. Mehta.
p. 565, margin D
Agent for the respondent : S. P. Varma. (') 55l
p. 565, margin D