TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to adopt the financial year ending 31 March 1950 as the relevant previous year for income from the managing agency and selling agency business. (ii) Whether the dividend income from a company registered in a Part B State was chargeable to income-tax and super-tax only at the concessional rates under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to adopt the financial year ending 31 March 1950 as the relevant previous year for income from the managing agency and selling agency business.
Analysis: The question of the relevant previous year stood covered by the Court's earlier decision in a connected matter. The High Court's view was examined in that light, and the assessee's contention that the Diwali year must continue to govern was rejected.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to adopt the financial year ending 31 March 1950 as the relevant previous year.
Issue (ii): Whether the dividend income from a company registered in a Part B State was chargeable to income-tax and super-tax only at the concessional rates under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950.
Analysis: Paragraphs 3(v), 4(1)(iii), 6 and 12 of the Order were read together. In the absence of a State law in Madhya Bharat relating to income-tax and super-tax, the State rate was deemed to be the rate in the Schedule. For income accruing in the Part B State and falling within paragraph 12, the taxable amount was to be assessed under the formula in paragraph 6, and the tax payable, including super-tax, was confined to the concessional rates in the Schedule.
Conclusion: The dividend income was assessable at the concessional rates prescribed by the Schedule to the Order, and super-tax was also payable only at those concessional rates.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the previous year question, but the tax treatment of the dividend income was upheld on the concessional-rate basis, so the appeal did not warrant interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a Part B State had no law imposing income-tax and super-tax, the tax payable on dividend income falling within the protective provisions of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 had to be computed at the Schedule rates, and the concessional regime governed both income-tax and super-tax.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
