HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal v. Sodra Devi; Damayanti Sahni connected appeal
Civil Appeals 322 and 25 of 1955
[1958] SCR 1 ·
Indian Income-tax Act 1922, section 16(3)(a)(ii) · Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 1937
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · N. H. Bhagwati · S. K. Das · J. L. Kapur
Assessment years: Assessment years not expressly specified; Damayanti firm accounting year ended 31 March 1947
01 · Facts of the case
Two mothers were partners in firms to whose benefits their minor sons were admitted. The references concerned whether the minors’ profit shares had to be aggregated with the mothers’ income under the then section 16(3)(a)(ii).
Source: Primary report: SCR 3–5
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Bhagwati and Kapur JJ. found contextual ambiguity in individual and construed the provision, with legislative history, as confined to a male assessee. S. K. Das J. dissented: ordinary meaning covered both sexes and distributive reading preserved that meaning; the report recommendations were not wholly enacted.
Source: Primary report: Majority SCR 6–21; dissent SCR 21–36
03 · Judicial decision
By majority, Revenue appeal 322 dismissed with costs and assessee appeal 25 allowed with costs; reference question answered negatively.
Source: Primary report: SCR 21, 37
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Both mothers succeeded against aggregation under the historical provision.
Source: Primary report: SCR 37
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Do not turn this into a present-day exemption for a mother or minor’s income. It construed the wording of the 1922 Act as amended in 1937. The dissent and ordinary wider meaning of individual elsewhere in the Act must be distinguished from the narrow majority holding.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 37-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.