1

ASSIGNMENT NO.1 TAXATION LAW

Commissioner of income Tax, West Bengal VS

National & Grindlays Bank Ltd case 1968

Submitted by
Seba anna simon
Fourth year BA.LL.B

Reg.no 45418231042

Submitted to
Prof. Geetashree S Kurup
13-01-2022
2

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the Research Assignment No. titled CIT WEST BENGAL VS
NATIONAL &GRINDLAYS BANK CASE carried out under the guidance of Prof.
Geethashree s kurup is a record of bona-fide research work undertaken by me in partial
fulfilment for the award of 5 Year B.A.LL.B offered by Christ Academy Institute of Law,
Bengaluru. The said work is an authentic research and not submitted before any other
University/Academic Programs for the award of any other degrees.

13- 01- 2022 Seba anna simon

BENGALURU 7th semester, BA.LLB

3

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Seba anna simon a student of 7th Semester 45418231042 has
successfully completed the Research Assignment No.1 on the topic CIT WEST BENGAL VS
NATIONAL AND GRINDLAYS BANK CASE under the guidance of Ms. Geethashree s
kurup during the academic year 2021-22 in partial fulfilment for the award of 5 Year
B.B.A.LL.B offered by Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru

13-01-2022 (Asst.Prof CAIL)

BENGALURU
4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the successful accomplishment of this research assignment, I am indebted to my
supervising Guide Prof. Geethashree s kurup who gave me proper direction by apt
corrections, suggestions and academic review at every stage of research. I would also like to
place on record my gratitude to the Principal Rev. Fr. Prof. Dr. Davis Panadan whose
constant guidance and insistence on scientific research has nurtured in me a sense of
systematic inquiry in all academic writings. I am also grateful to the Librarian of CAIL Mr.
Jayaprakash for making available plentiful library resources which has provided me deep
knowledge in the subject of study. My parents and good friends have always stood by me in
all academic endeavours and helpful in various phases of the completion of this assignment.
Last but never the least I am forever indebted to God Almighty for providing me such
enriching opportunities of learning, further enabling me to be a better person and reminding
me to repose my complete faith and confidence in divine blessings for success of anything in
life.

13- 01- 2022 Seba Anna Simon, 45418231042

BENGALURU 7th semester, BA.LLB

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

TITLE……………………………………………………………………………….6

BENCH…………………………………………………………………………………6

FACTS………………………………………………………………………………….6-7

ISSUES……………………………………………………………………………….7

ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………………………8-9

LAWS APPLIED…………………………………………………………….9-10

JUDGEMENT…………………………………………………………………10-13

RATIONALE……………………………………………………………………14-17

CONCURRING AND DISSENT……………………………………….18

CRITICAL ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………..18-19

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………20
6

TITLE

Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal vs. National & Grindlays Bank Ltd

On 28 February, 1968

Citation: AIR 1969 Cal 71, 72 CWN 891, 1969 72 ITR 121 Cal

BENCH

Single bench judge - P Mukharji, K Roy

FACTS

The assessment years are 1953-54 and 1954-55 for which the previous years are the calendar
years 1952 and 1953 respectively. The assessee is a sterling banking company and has been
assessed as a non-resident in both the years in question. During the relevant years interests
amounting to 35,576.94 and 42,638.23 were received by the assessee in the United Kingdom
from Messrs’ Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation, which is a company incorporated in
England with its head office in London and was during relevant periods carrying on business
of supplying electricity in the city of Calcutta and certain other places in India. The
Corporation maintained a current bank account with the assessee's head office in London.

On the 24th May 1950 the Corporation applied to the assessee bank for grant of temporary
financial accommodation to the extent of 1 million. The reason for seeking the financial
accommodation as given in the application was that according to the balance-sheet on the
31st December 1949 there was a contingent liability of 2.4 million in respect of contracts for
capital expenditure already placed at that date. It was stated in that application that such
liability would mature progressively during the course of the next eighteen months and that
the same had been incurred in connection with the building of the Corporation's new
Cossipore Generating Station and extension to Mulajore station. On the 31st May 1950 the
assessee sanctioned the overdraft facility of 1 million in the Corporation's said current
account with it. This facility was later extended by increasing the limit of the overdraft to
7

further amounts. The Corporation having utilised the overdraft facility, its aforesaid current
account remained overdrawn throughout the relevant previous years 1952 and 1953 on which
the sterling interests were paid by the Corporation to the assessee in England.

The assessee's case before the Income-tax Officer was that the money lent by it to the
Corporation had not at all been brought into India. As such no interest accrued to the assessee
on money lent and paid within the taxable territories under Section 42 (1) of the Income-tax
Act. The same contention was repeated in respect of interests received from the tea
companies. The assessee also received interest during the said years from the two tea
companies doing business in India and the assessee claimed that no portion of the interest
was taxable under the Income-tax Act.

ISSUES

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in
holding that the provisions of Section 42 (1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, had
no application to the assessee's case in respect of the interest received on overdraft
granted to the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.?

2. Whether the computation of the amounts of taxable interest in the case of the tea
company as made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the
Tribunal, was in accordance with law?
8

ARGUMENTS

Arguments by Income tax officer

The Income-tax Officer's decision based on the fact which he held that the Corporation while
carrying out capital expansion in India utilised the overdraft granted by the assessee in
purchasing machinery in England and bringing the same for installation in India. He,
therefore, came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the interest on the overdraft was deemed
to accrue on money brought Into India "in kind", the assessee came within Section 42 (1) of
the Act. The basis of his decision was that the expression "money in kind" in Section 42 (1)
of the Income-tax Act included anything into which the money had been converted. The
Income-tax Officer held that the money was brought into India in the form of electrical
machinery and generators with the full knowledge of the assessee that while granting the
overdraft that the facility would be utilised in India. This is why he held that even though the
overdraft was granted to meet the contractual liability in respect of the capital expenditure
already Incurred, it was obvious that all these transactions, namely, the purchase of the
capital machinery, the contractual liability to pay those bills and the overdrafts were integral
parts of one complete transaction.

Arguments by assessee

The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the judgment of the
Income-tax Officer. The Appellant Assistant Commissioner confirmed the Income-Tax
Officer's order but modified the quantum. He called upon the assessee to furnish figures of
interest accruing on the daily balance of the overdraft specifically utilised for the purpose of
purchasing plants and machinery which came to India. The assessee furnished those figures
and data. The quantum of the taxable interest received from the Corporation was reduced to
16,297 and 6,225 for these two years respectively. In respect of the interest chargeable to tax
received from the tea companies it was reduced to 2,612 for the assessment year 1953-54.

Arguments by revenue authorities

Both the assessee and the Revenue Authorities preferred appeals to the Tribunal against such
finding and decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee in its appeal
challenged the validity of the assessment of tax of interest received by it from the
9

Corporation. But with regard to the Interest received from Tea Companies the assessee
accepted the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Department, however,
challenged the method in which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner computed the taxable
amount of interest.

LAWS APPLIED

INCOME TAX ACT 1995

Section 42 

Special provision for deductions in the case of business for prospecting, etc., for mineral oil
For the purpose of computing the profits or gains of any business consisting of the
prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oils in relation to which the Central
Government has entered into an agreement with any person for the association or
participation 1 of the Central Government or any person authorised by it in such business]
(which agreement has been laid on the Table of each House of Parliament), there shall be
made in lieu of, or in addition to, the allowances admissible under this Act, such allowances
as are specified in the agreement in relation-

(a) to expenditure by way of infructuous or abortive exploration expenses in respect of any

area surrendered prior to the beginning of commercial production by the assessee;

Section 4

Charge of income- tax 1

(1) Where any Central Act enacts that income- tax shall be charged for any assessment year
at any rate or rates, income- tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in
accordance with, and 2 subject to the provisions (including provisions for the levy of
additional income- tax) of, this Act] in respect of the total income of the previous year] of
every person: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income- tax is to be
charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, income- tax shall be
charged accordingly.
10

(2) In respect of income chargeable under sub- section (1), income- tax shall be deducted at
the source or paid in advance, where it is so deductible or payable under any provision of this
Act.

Section 66

Total income In computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be included all income
on which no income- tax is payable under Chapter VII .

JUDGEMENT

The Tribunal found that Section 42 (1) of the Income-Tax Act had no application to the

assessee's case in respect of interest received by it from the Corporation. The Tribunal gave
two reasons, namely,

First that the money lent by the assessee was neither brought in cash nor in kind in the
taxable territories. The Tribunal developed its reason by saying that admittedly no money was
brought in cash and it was neither brought in kind in view of the fact that what were brought
to India were only electric generators and plants purchased in the United Kingdom from the
money received from the assessee in London on the overdraft. In other words, the Tribunal
construed the expression "money in kind" in Section 42 (1) of the Income-Tax Act not to
mean money converted in kind. According to the Tribunal electric generators and plants did
not satisfy the criterion of Section 42 (1) and money meant a medium of exchange and
anything to be called money must retain the character of money or its equivalent in drafts,
cheques etc., which were really acceptable in the commercial world for money. Electric
generators and plants did not satisfy that criterion.

Secondly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Section 42 (1) of the Act was attracted
only to a case where the lending and borrowing were an integral part of the scheme to bring
money into taxable territory following the Federal Court decision in A. H. Wadia v.
Commissioner of Income-tax1, . On reading the correspondence on this point, the Tribunal
also came to the conclusion that there was no composite arrangement between the
Corporation and the assessee for bringing money into India in the shape of electrical
generators and plants. The Tribunal also observed that a transaction, in order to be an

1
1949 51 BOMLR 287
11

integrated composite whole, the transference of money to India, even if the machinery could
be described to be money in kind, it must be as a result of conscious definite arrangement
between the assessee and the Corporation and not simply an act of the Corporation without
any reference to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the transference of the machinery to
India was the sole concern and responsibility of the Corporation alone with which the
assessee was completely unconcerned. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the assessee's
appeals and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue Department. The Department has now
come with the above questions in this Reference.

In the matter of interpretation of Section 42 (1) of the Income-Tax Act and particularly the

expression "in cash or in kind" occurring in Sub-section (1) thereof. Broadly analysed Section
42 (1) covers five different classes of income which are said to be income deemed to accrue
or arise within the taxable territories. Paraphrasing Section 42 (1) and leaving aside matters
not relevant for the purposes of this reference, it reads as follows:--

"All income accruing or arising whether directly or indirectly--

(1) through or from any business connection in the taxable territories or (2) through or from
any property In the taxable territories or (3) through or from any asset or source of income in
the taxable territories or (4) through or from any money lent at interest and brought into the
taxable territories in cash or in kind or (5) through or from sale, exchange or transfer of a
capital asset in the taxable territories, shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising within
the taxable territories--

and where the person entitled to the income, profits or gains is not resident in the taxable
territories shall be chargeable to income-tax either in his name or in the name of his agent and
in the latter case such agent shall be deemed to be for all the purposes of this Act, the
assessee in respect of such income-tax."

It was observed that the contention of the Revenue on this point suffers from a number of
fallacies. Section 42 (1) of the Income-Tax Act as its language reads is income which is
deemed to accrue or arise within the taxable territories although which is not so in fact. It is
an income which is arising outside but which by the statute is deemed to accrue or arise
within the taxable territory. But then this deeming provision is careful to describe the
connection or the nexus between such income and the taxable territory. That will be plain
from the five different classes of income stated on the analysis of the section itself. The nexus
12

in the first class is the business connection in the taxable territory. The nexus in the second
class is the property in the taxable territory. The nexus in the third class is the asset in the
taxable territory. The nexus in the fourth class is the money lent at interest but brought into
the taxable territory in cash or in kind meaning thereby that that money or the interest must
be brought into the taxable territory, no doubt either in cash or in kind. The nexus in the fifth
class is the capital asset in the taxable territory. It is also essential to bear in mind in order to
appreciate this nexus or the axis on which the income is deemed to arise within the taxable
territory that it is the assessee who is the objective or the target for the Revenue and where
the assessee is non-resident, his agent is necessarily the target or objective and as such is
deemed to be the assessee in respect of the Income-Tax Act under Section 42 (1) of the Act.
The Revenue Authorities in their contention appear to miss both the nexus as well as the
concept of the assessee under Section 42 (1) of the Income-Tax Act. The picture or
consideration would have varied materially if the assessee in this case, whom we are
considering, was not the Bank but the Corporation. But here the assessee is the National and
Grindlays Bank Ltd., Calcutta who is the lender and it is the Bank's income that we are
considering in this assessment.

The other question relates to the computation of the amount of taxable interest in the case of
the Tea Co., repay. It was contended that this computation was not in accordance with the
law. It is conceded that on principle it is taxable under Section 42 (1). The only objection of
the Revenue Authorities is with regard to the computation of it. It is admitted that the money
is borrowed from the Bank and by this Tea Company was brought to India and not in the
shape of goods and machinery. That concession is given by Mr. Pal on behalf of the Revenue
Authority. In respect of the Darjeeling Tea Co. Ltd., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
finds the fact that parts of the interest charged on these accounts were chargeable to Income-
tax. But he could not accept the estimate made by the Income-tax Officer that such income
would come to 3000. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the
figures of the net interest which the appellant furnished came to the conclusion that the
amount was 2162 and in respect of the two other Companies the figures of gross interest on
the amount borrowed and brought into India were respectively 600 and 252. Therefore, the
question of allowance of the proportionate cost to the Head Office of earning the interest is to
be deducted. The gross interest was 852. On the facts supplied before the authorities
regarding the Head Office cost, such cost with respect to this gross interest would come to
400. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the net interest income
13

chargeable was 400 and the total income chargeable would thus come to 2612 ( 2162 plus
450} as against 3000 estimated by the Income-tax Officer. In those circumstances, he
restricted the amount chargeable to 2612 which means deduction of 388.

Mr. Pal for the Revenue has not been able to show us in what way this computation was
against the provisions of any law. The Tribunal found as a fact that the Appellate Assistant
Commissioner rightly computed the net interest in the amount of interest taxable. This being
so, the answer to the second question is in the negative and we hold that the computation of
the amounts of taxable interest in the case of the Tea Company as made by the Appellate
Assistant Commissioner was in accordance with the law.

The Commissioner will pay the costs of this Reference. Certified for two Counsels.
14

RATIONALE

 Money has been known to be a cause of trouble and anxiety not only morally and
materially but also fiscally and legally under the Income-tax Act and other taxing
statutes. Judicial interpretation of “money”, by Judges and Courts, has added fuel to
the fire. For instance, interpretation of "money" in a will or a testament construed by
Judges has almost caused intellectual uproars throughout the world. Money when
used in a will has been construed by Courts in its strictest sense unless there was a
context which permitted a wider interpretation. In that strict and rigorous sense money
has been held to mean not only cash and in kind but also all forms of money due, such
as cash at the bank, dividends due, bills, drafts and similar choses in action. Meredith,
J., In re, Jennings; Coldbeck v. Stafford2, 1930 In Rule 196 made the following
celebrated observation:--
"The judiciary has waged a long fight to teach testators that "money" means cash, but
as the ordinary testator who makes his own will does not study the law reports, he
proceeds in constantly using the word in a wider sense and it is time that in such cases
the popular meaning prevailed over the legal one."

 Perrin v. Morgan3, Viscount Simonds, Lord Chancellor, observes at p. 414:

"The present question is not. In my opinion, one in which this House is required on
the ground of public interest to maintain a rule which has been constantly applied but
which it is convinced is erroneous. It is far important to promote the correct
construction of future wills in this respect than to preserve consistency in
misinterpretation."

The classic and the leading case on the point is the one decided by the Privy Council in 

 Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd.4

There the assesses were owners of sterling bonds of the Government of India, the
interest on which was payable in England received in England and they invested that
income in the purchase of certain mill stores and machinery in England and brought

2
1930 Ir. R. 196
3
1943 AC 399
4
1940 42 BOMLR 318
15

the articles purchased to India and employed them for the purposes of their mills. It
was decided by the Privy Council there confirming the decision of the Bombay High
Court that the income was not received in or brought into India within the meaning
of Section 4 (2) of the Income-tax Act and the assessees were not accordingly liable
to pay Income-tax on this amount. No doubt this decision must be read subject to the
Explanation to Section 45 of the Act after the Amendment Act of 1939.

Certain principles there discussed are of crucial importance for the purposes of this
case. Lord Romer in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council approved the
observation of Lord Lindley in
 Gresham Life Assurance Society, Ltd. v. Bishop,5 where Lord Lindley had said "a
sum of money may be received in more ways than one e.g., by the transfer of coin or
a negotiable instrument or other document which represents and produces coin, and is
treated as such by businessman. Even a settlement in account may be equivalent to a
receipt of a sum of money although no money may pass." Lord Homer at page 98 of
the report in makes the following significant observations:
"It is not and cannot be suggested in the present case that the mill stores and
machinery were purchased in England and shipped out to India as a method of
bringing over the sterling interest that had been received in this country. No one in his
senses would think of employing such a method of transmitting money. But apart
from the inherent improbability of the thing, it is found as a fact by the Commissioner
that the mill stores and machinery were required by the respondents for their business
in India, and it is not suggested that they will be sold or will be employed otherwise
than in and for the purposes of the respondents' mills."
 The next landmark in judicial decisions is to be found in (1949) 17 ITR 63(AIR 1949
FC 18), a decision of the then Federal Court of India. Three of the learned Judges
Kania, C. J., Mahajan, J, and Mukherjea, J., came to the conclusion in that case that
the provision in Section 42 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act was not ultra vires on the
ground that it was extra-territorial in operation for the nexus, according to the three
learned Judges was the bringing of the money into India with the knowledge of the
lender and borrower giving the real territorial connection. Patanjali, J., disagreed with
that view that bringing of money by the borrower could not constitute a sufficient
territorial connection. Kania, C. J., at page 71 of the report analysed Section 42 (1) of
5
1902 AC 287
16

the Income-tax Act and showed the nexus or the connection in each case on the lines
which we have already indicated above. Interpreting Section 42 (1) on the point which
is present before us Kania, C. J., observed at page 73 of the report as follows:
"The exact words used in the Section are, arising from any money lent at interest and
brought into British India in cash or in kind. In my opinion it is proper to read this as
one head and as indicating one composite transaction. The interest must be the result
of the loan of money and the money must be brought into British India in cash or in
kind. Reading it in that way the incident of bringing the money into British India in
cash or in kind to the knowledge of the lender and borrower is an integral part of the
transaction. After the money is brought into India, how it is used by the borrower, to
my mind, is an irrelevant question."

Exposition of this principle under Section 42 (1) of the Income-tax Act is to be found from a

few more decisions. 

 In the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. the

Supreme Court drew the ratio of the decision in in the following words of
Ramaswami, J., at page 614 "but all the learned Judges agree that the knowledge of
the lender and the borrower that the money is to be taken into British India must be an
integral part of the transaction. That is a ratio of the decision of the Federal Court with
regard to the construction of Section 42 (1) of the Act". The Supreme Court in the
case of Sri Meenakshi Mills came to the conclusion that the principle laid down in
Wadia's case was specified and that the Income-tax authorities there were right in
holding that the entire interest earned on fixed deposit was taxable.

 Tomson v. Moyse,6 the House of Lords considered the question of a taxpayer

domiciled in the United States of America, but at all material times a British subject
resident in the United Kingdom, who was entitled to income from the estates of his
mother and father, both estates being situate in the United States. In that case
payments of income from the estates were actually made by the trustees into an
account in the taxpayer's name in the Bank at New York. The taxpayer drew cheques
in dollars on the Bank of New York in favour of one or other of his bankers in the
United Kingdom and requested them to purchase the cheques. The taxpayer's English
6
1961 AC 967
17

bankers sold the amount of dollars specified in the respective cheques to the Bank of
England and credited to the taxpayer's account in England an amount in sterling
equivalent at the then rate of exchange to the amount of dollars specified in the
cheques. Then the English bankers, by registered mail, presented the taxpayer's
cheques to the Bank of New York, which honoured those cheques and on the
instruction of the English bankers, transferred the amount of dollars in question in
each case to the account of the Bank of England with the Federal Reserve Bank of the
United States. The taxpayer was assessed to income-tax. The House of Lords held that
the sterling credits were sums received by the taxpayer in the United Kingdom out of
his American income which had pro tanto been used to acquire them and that in this
sense he had brought forward his American income to the United Kingdom. It is
pointed out in this decision by the House of Lords that for the purposes of Rules 2 of
Case IV and Case V of Schedule D of the British Income-tax, the bringing in of a
person's income meant nothing more than the effecting of its transmission from one
country to the other by whatever means, the agencies of commerce or finance might
make available for that purpose. If that transmission took place it was immaterial
whether any thing, items of property or instrument of transfer, had actually been
brought into the country or not. Nor was it said to be relevant to ascertain what had
happened to the taxpayer's money in the country where the income arose.
 The Supreme Court decision In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Tata
Locomotive and Engineering Co., Ltd. Considered the question where the Indian
assessee repatriated his dollars from the United States. It was held there that the act of
retaining the money in the United States for capital purposes after obtaining the
sanction of the Reserve Bank was not a trading transaction in the business of
manufacture of locomotive boilers and locomotives and it was clearly a transaction of
accumulating dollars to pay for capital goods, the first step to the acquisition of
capital goods. Therefore, the surplus attributable was capital accretion and not profit
taxable in the hands of the assessee.

CONCURRING AND DISSENT

18

Concurring and dissent is not applicable in this case, since the bench came with the same
judgement. It was a single bench judge.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

On respectfully agreeing with the judgment delivered and the answers given by judgement
some analysis on my part include the meaning of the expression “money in kind”

In support of this contention that the expression "money in kind" in Section 42 (1) of the Act
would include anything into which the money has been converted, Mr, Pal referred us to the
meaning of the expression "in kind" in Murray's Oxford Dictionary, 1901 Edn. Vol. V at p.
699 which is as follows:--

"Item 15: In kind: in the very kind of article or commodity in question; usually of payment; in
goods or natural produce as opposed to money." In my opinion, the meaning attributed to the
word "in kind" in the Oxford Dictionary is that the article or commodity in question must be
of the very kind or of the same kind. It is only in the case of payment in kind that goods or
natural produce, as opposed to money, is implied. Even assuming that the expression "money
in kind" includes also the articles into which the money has been converted, as contended by
Mr. Pal and for which Mr. Pal relies on the observation of Mukherji, J., of the Federal Court
in Wadia's case at p. 123 of the Report, 1949-17 ITR: fat p. 49 of AIR 1949 FC), in this case
no goods or commodity into which the money, lent by the assessee to the Corporation is an
overdraft account was converted could be said to have been brought into the taxable territory.
The application by the Corporation to the assessee for the overdraft dated May 24, 1950
shows clearly that the plant and machinery required for the Corporation's power stations in
the taxable territories had already been ordered for, despatched to and installed in India
before the end of 1949. As on December 31, 1949 the liability of the Corporation was to the
manufacturers of the machinery in the United Kingdom for the price of the machinery
supplied and such liability was to mature within the course of the next 18 months from May,
1950. The overdraft accommodation obtained from the assessee was utilised by the
Corporation to meet its liability to the manufacturers in England as and when such liability,
19

matured. It has also been found by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that a part of this
overdraft was utilised by the Corporation for meeting its overhead charges in the United
Kingdom. So, it could not be said that the amount of the overdraft granted by the assessee to
the Corporation had been brought into the taxable territories in cash or in kind.

Further, the statements made by the assessee and the Corporation before the Income-tax
Officer would show that not only had the plant and machinery arrived in India but they had
been installed and was in most cases in operation on or before June 1950. The statement filed
by the Corporation before the Income-tax Officer, which is included in the paper book, at p.
63-65, shows that during the accounting years 1952 and 1953 very substantial amounts were
utilised out of the overdrafts for meeting the ordinary day to day expenditure of the
Corporation in the U. K. It could not, therefore, be said that the overdraft accommodation
granted by the assessee to the Corporation had been utilised solely for the purpose of bringing
in plant and machinery into the taxable territories. I, therefore, concur with the judgement
given by honourable judge to the questions referred to this Court in this reference.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
20

LEGISLATION

 Income tax law 1955

CASE LAWS

 A.H. Wadia vs Commissioner of Income tax- 1948 24th November

 The Dy. CIT, Special Range 54 vs Godrej Properties vs CIT on 14 November, 2003
 State Bank Of Indore vs CIT on 11 October, 2004
 Dy. CIT vs Shree Synthetics Ltd. on 7 March, 2002
 Eicher Goodearth Ltd. vs Dy. CIT on 18 February, 2007
 A.C.I.T. vs Ranbir Chemicals Industries Pvt. ... on 28 February, 2007

JUDGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

 https://indiankanoon.org
 https://www.casemine.com
 https://en.m.wikipedia.org