HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Rajputana Agencies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1957
[1959] Supp. 1 SCR 142 ·
Finance Act 1951 First Schedule Part I paragraph B · Finance Act 1952 section 2 · Income-tax Act 1922 section 60A
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar · P. B. Gajendragadkar · A. K. Sarkar
Assessment years: 1952-53
01 · Facts of the case
A Saurashtra company paid income-tax at sixteen pies per rupee after the Part B States concession. Its declared dividend exceeded the statutory distributable amount, attracting additional income-tax; the dispute concerned the rate, not liability.
Source: Primary report: SCR 143–145
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The statutory reference to tax actually borne and the rate applicable to the company for the particular year required the actual rate after concessions. A general four-anna company rate could not be substituted.
Source: Primary report: SCR 147–152
03 · Judicial decision
The applicable rate meant the rate actually applied. The five-anna benchmark less sixteen pies produced additional tax of forty-four pies per rupee on the excess dividend.
Source: Primary report: SCR 152
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The company’s appeal was dismissed with costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 153
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
This is a construction of the historical excess-dividend additional-tax formula. Whether a company with no taxable income could incur that tax was expressly outside the appeal.
Source: Primary report: SCR 152–153
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 12-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.