Income Tax Officer Vs. Stumpp Schuele and Somappa (P) Ltd.  INSC 281 (14 September 1990)
K.N. Singh, K. Jagannatha Shetty Andkuldip Singh, Jj.)
These appeals, by leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution,
are directed against the judgment and order of the, High Court of Karnataka
dated 3-7-1975 (Second ITO v. Stumpp Schuele and Somappa (P) Ltd.2, allowing
the writ petitions filed by the respondent-assessee and quashing the notices
issued under Sections 8 and 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any good reason to
interfere with the view taken by the High Court. A similar view has been taken
by a number of High Courts in Addl. CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd.3; Commissioner
of Surtax v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.4; CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.5;
CIT v. Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd.6; CIT v. Schrader Scovill Duncan
Ltd.7; CIT v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.8; Siemens India 1 (1991) 187 ITR
108 (SC): (1991) 94 CTR 160 2 (1977) 106 ITR 399 3 (1977) 110 ITR 131 (Mad) 4
(1979) 116 ITR 528 (Bom) 5 (1980) 126 ITR 736 (Delhi) 6 (1981) 128 ITR 694 (Ker)
7 (1981) 132 ITR 822 (Cal) 8 (1982) 133 ITR 578 (Guj) 152 Ltd. v. K. Subramanian
Ltd., IT09; K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. 10; CIT v. J. K. Synthetics
Ltd. 11; CIT v. Indian Detonators Ltd. 12; CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 13;
CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries (P) Ltd. 14 and CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co.
Ltd. 1-5 There is a preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the assessee
with which we agree.
appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to