HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Navinchandra Mafatlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Civil Appeal 194 of 1952
[1955] 1 SCR 829 ·
Income-tax Act 1922, section 12B · Government of India Act 1935, section 100 and Seventh Schedule List I entry 54
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench · Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J. · S. R. Das · Ghulam Hasan · Bhagwati · Venkatarama Ayyar
Assessment years: 1947–48; calendar accounting year 1946
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee’s half share of gains on sale of Bombay immovable properties, Rs. 9,38,011, was assessed under newly inserted section 12B. He challenged legislative competence to tax capital gains.
Source: Primary report: SCR 831–832
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Income in a constitutional legislative entry has its broad ordinary meaning, including capital gains. Judicial interpretations of narrower charging schemes did not establish a restrictive legislative practice that froze the legislative power. Entries conferring power receive a liberal construction.
Source: Primary report: SCR 833–837
03 · Judicial decision
The 1947 amendment enlarging income, introducing a capital-gains head and inserting section 12B was intra vires entry 54. Appeal dismissed with costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 838
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue succeeded.
Source: Primary report: SCR 838
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Separate legislative competence from the scope of a particular charging provision. The judgment validates the power to enact the charge; it does not establish that every capital receipt is taxable without statutory charging language.
Source: Primary report: SCR 834–838
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 10-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.