HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South, Bombay v. Messrs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Ogale Wadi
Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1953
[1955] 1 SCR 185 ·
Indian Income-tax Act 1922 sections 4(1)(a), 66 · Indian Contract Act 1872 section 50
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · S.R. Das J. · N.H. Bhagwati J. · Jagannadhadas J.
Assessment years: 1941–42 to 1945–46
01 · Facts of the case
The non-resident glass manufacturer in Aundh supplied goods to the Government of India and asked that its bills be remitted by cheques on a Bombay bank. Cheques drawn in Delhi arrived by post in Aundh and were collected in Bombay. The dispute was where payment was received for section 4(1)(a).
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Payment by a cheque that is honoured relates to delivery, even if initially conditional; later encashment in Bombay was not itself the decisive first receipt. But the request to remit by cheque, read with normal business usage, authorised postal transmission. The post office thus acted as the creditor’s agent, and posting in Delhi constituted delivery and payment there. This alternative argument was within the referred question and supported by recorded facts; the Court left the broader scope of questions arising out of a Tribunal order open.
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue appeal allowed; receipt in British India was established and the referred question answered affirmatively. Each side bore its own costs in both courts because the Revenue failed on its main argument but succeeded on the alternative postal-agency ground.
Source: Primary report: SCR 205; PDF 21
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue on receipt in British India.
Source: Primary report: SCR 205; PDF 21
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Identify who authorised transmission, whether the instrument was honoured, and when delivery to the creditor or its agent occurred. Do not equate the collecting bank’s location with the place of first receipt, or presume postal agency absent the creditor’s express or implied request.
Source: Primary report: SCR 195–199, 203–205; PDF 11–15, 19–21
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 21-page primary report, including any adjoining report boundary fragments retained in the exact source bytes.
Statutory scope
Historical predecessor legislation only; this is not a decision applying the Income-tax Act, 1961. Verify the applicable statutory text separately.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-21. 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.