| Case ID |
10af267f-47a1-4bba-ba8b-c02ae9467d15 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MATTER No. 531 OF 1966 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 13, 1970 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Calcutta High Court held that there was no omission or failure on the part of the petitioner-company to disclose all material facts necessary for its assessments for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1961-62. The court found that the Income Tax Officer had investigated the taxability of liaison expenditure, and since the Indian company was held not liable to deduct any tax on this amount, it followed that these amounts were not taxable in the hands of the petitioner-company. The impugned notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act were therefore struck down, and the rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioner. |
| Summary |
In the case of Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd. (London) vs. Income Tax Officer, the Calcutta High Court examined the tax implications of liaison expenditures incurred by a UK-based company with its Indian subsidiary. The petitioner, a non-resident company, argued that the income from liaison expenditures should not be taxable in India, as it had been previously assessed without tax liability. The court found that the Income Tax Officer had previously investigated these payments and deemed them non-taxable, establishing a precedent that the same officer was aware of these transactions. The court ruled that there was no failure to disclose material facts by the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the reassessment notices issued were unjustified. This case underscores the importance of proper assessment procedures and the responsibilities of tax authorities to investigate claims thoroughly. Keywords: income tax, liaison expenditure, non-resident company, assessment years, tax liability, Calcutta High Court. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd.,
Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd. (London)
|
| Judges |
T.K. Basu, J
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. D. Pal for the Petitioner,
Dipak Sen for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd. (London)
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1971 SLD 452,
(1971) 79 ITR 349,
(1973) 27 TAX 125
|
| Other Citations |
Bhanji Lavji v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 1 (Guj.),
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC),
CIT v. Kallu Babu Lal Chand[1969] 73 ITR 138 (Cal.),
S.M. Dahanukar v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 504 (Bom.),
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. v. ITO [1964] 51 ITR 12(Mad.),
E.M. Muthappa Chettiar v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 642 (Mad.),
Sudhir Kumar Bhose v. ITO [1968] 69 ITR 446 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961,
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
195(2),
201(1),
148,
147,
34
|