HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Provident Investment Co. Ltd.
Civil Appeal 179 of 1954
[1957] SCR 1141 ·
Indian Income-tax Act 1922, section 12B as originally enacted
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · N. H. Bhagwati · S. K. Das · J. L. Kapur
Assessment years: Transaction in 1946; assessment year not identified in this report
01 · Facts of the case
The company agreed to sell shares and managing agencies, but before completion substituted resignation of the agencies. The agreed case allocated one crore rupees to those agencies and computed proposed capital gain at Rs.81,81,900.
Source: Primary report: SCR 1143–1146
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The original letters were an agreement, not completed sale. The later contract substituted relinquishment. Original section 12B covered sale, exchange or transfer, not relinquishment; Revenue could not abandon agreed allocation and argue an indivisible shares transaction on different facts.
Source: Primary report: SCR 1146–1151
03 · Judicial decision
High Court negative answer upheld; Revenue appeal dismissed with costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 1151
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Assessee succeeded on the historical capital-gains charge for the managing-agency relinquishment.
Source: Primary report: SCR 1151
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Identify the completed transaction and version of the charging provision. The judgment itself records that the 1956 reintroduction expressly added relinquishment; it gives no present-day exemption for surrender of capital assets.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 11-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
Statutory scope
Historical legislation expressly identified in this note. This is not a decision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Income-tax Act, 2025. Verify enacted wording, commencement, transition and subsequent judicial treatment independently before modern reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-23. Subsequent treatment and present-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 uses AI assistance and a preserved full-primary review, with refreshed exact original-byte verification. 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. AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.