HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v Jeewanlal Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1952
[1954] SCR 189 ·
Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, section 2(21) and section 21 · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 66
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench · Patanjali Sastri CJI · S. R. Das J. (author) · Vivian Bose J. · Ghulam Hasan J. · N. H. Bhagwati J.
Assessment years: Chargeable periods ending 31 December 1939 to 31 December 1943
01 · Facts of the case
A Canadian company held almost all shares in the assessee and authorised a director to vote for it. The assessee claimed the higher standard-profit percentage available to director-controlled companies.
Source: Primary report: SCR 190–192
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Did the director’s authority to vote the corporate shareholder’s shares give the directors a controlling interest? Registered shareholders with majority voting power could possess controlling interest even as trustees. A voting agent was different: no legal or beneficial share interest passed to him, his authority was revocable, and his votes remained the principal’s. Control therefore remained with the Canadian shareholder.
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue’s appeal was allowed; the reference was answered negatively, with costs in both courts.
Source: Primary report: SCR 195
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal was allowed; the reference was answered negatively, with costs in both courts.
Source: Primary report: SCR 195
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Distinguish holding voting shares from exercising another shareholder’s revocable voting authority. This addresses the historical excess-profits-tax definition and does not determine modern beneficial ownership or control tests.
Source: Primary report: SCR 193–195
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Seven pages / SCR 189–195; target ends before Allahabad Bank caption on last page.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory text and assessment period only. Present statutory equivalence and later judicial treatment are not cleared.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-18. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.