VoxJuris
Home › 1950 › Supreme Court of India

Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. v. Gappumal Kanhalya Lal

Dismissed
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
26 May 1950
Bench
Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B. K. Mukherjea

Headnote

Indian Income-tax (XI of 1922), s. 9 (1) (iv)-lncome from p1"Dperty-Computation of annual value-Deduction of "annual charges not being capital charges"-Municipa/ house-tax and water-tax-Whether deductible-Nature of such· charges-U.P. Munici-palities Act (II of 1916), ss. 128, 149, 177.

The amount of house-tax and the amount of water-tax imposed by the municipal board of Allahabad under s. 128 of the Unit¢ Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, and paid by the owner as a lessor under .s. 149 of the said Act are "annual charges not being capital _ charges to which · the property is subject," within the meaning of s. 9 (1) (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and should therefore be deducted from the bona fide ai;mual value of the property determined under sub-sections ( l) and -(2) of s. 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act

Judgment· of the Allahabad High Court affirmed.

New Pieccgoods. Bazar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay fl950l S. C. R. 553) followed.

( 1 ) I.L.R. 1943 Born. 628. .

4-5 S, C. Tndia (N. D )/58

1950 APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad (Civil Appeal No. VI of 1949).

Commissioner of Income-lax, This was an appeal from the High Court, Allahabad

U.P. (Iqbal Ahmad C. J. and Allsop J.) dated 31st August,

v. 1944, in a reference under section 66 of the Indian Gappumal Income-tax Act, 1922. The facts are set out in the Kanhai:1a Lal judgment.

M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for Indill (H. /. Umrigar, with him), for the appellant.

Gopi Nath Kunzru (K. B. Asthana, with him), for the respondent.

1950 May 26. The

Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.

Judgment

Mahajan]. 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 ( 1). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred four questions · to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under sec-tion 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 affirm-ative and are as follows :- "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."

{1 )New Piecef!oods Bazar eo. lid. ". Commissioner of I~. Btm1(Jtt

Under section 128 of the United Provinces Munici-1950 palities Act, 1916, the municipality can. impose a tax :in the whole or any part of the municipality on the Commissioner annual value of buildings or Janel or of both, and a of Income-tax, water-tax on the annual value of buildings or land or U.P. d both. Every such tax on the annual value of build-v. ings or land or both is leviable on the actual occupier of Gappumal K anhaiya Lal the property upon which the said taxes are assessed,. if he is the owner of the buildings or lands or holds them Mahajan]. 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. · ·

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 ( 1 ) 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.

Appeal dismissed.

Agent for the appellant: P. A. Mehta.

Agent for the respondent : S. P. Varma.

Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.