Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY versus MIS. KANJI SHIVJI AND CO.
- Decided
- 25 January 2000
- Judges listed
- S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEGDE
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2000] 1 S.C.R. 365 · 2000 INSC 30
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.
This appeal stands referred to a Bench of three Judges because it was found that a Bench of two learned Judges had taken the view that the conclusion of an earlier Bench of three learned Judges was difficult to accept. The issue relates to whether Explanation (2) to Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1%1, introduced with effect from 1st April, 1985, is prospective in operation or only declaratory.
p. 365, margin G
In Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. Commissioner of Income Tax, {223 l.T.R. 825), two learned Judges concluded that the said Explanation was declaratory. This view was accepted by a Bench of three learned Judges in Suwalal Anandilal Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax, {224 l.T.R. 753).
p. 366, margin A
In the case of Rashik Lal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (229 l.T.R. 458), this vitw was doubted. A Btnch of two learned Judges observed that it was difficult to accept the proposition that the said Explana: tion was only clarificatory for the reason that if what was contained in the said Explanation was already the law in force, then giving effect to the said Explanation from 1st April, 1985 did not make any sense. But the Bench immediately noted, "However, in the case before us, no question of payment of any interest is involved". In other words, the application of Section 40{b) and the said Explanation was not really in issue in Rashik Lat's case. The observations in Rashik Lat's case relative to the said Explanation must, therefore, be treated as obiter dicta.
p. 366, margin A
The conclusion of the court in the tarlier cases of . Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das and Suwalal Anandilal Jain still represents the com:ct exposition of the law. Following these decisions, the civil appeal must be dismissed.
p. 366, margin C
We are obliged to Mr. B. Sen, learned counsel, for his assistance at our request.
p. 366, margin D
Appeal dismissed.
p. 366, margin E
No order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
p. 366, margin E