HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Porbandar
Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1959
[1959] Supp. 2 SCR 547 ·
Income-tax Act 1922 sections 10(2)(vi), 10(5), 35 and 63
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · B. P. Sinha · J. L. Kapur · M. Hidayatullah
Assessment years: 1953-54
01 · Facts of the case
On the company’s rectification application concerning depreciation, the Income-tax Officer recomputed written-down values and reduced allowable and carried-forward depreciation. The company challenged absence of written notice and the officer’s rectification jurisdiction.
Source: Primary report: SCR 549–553
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The record comprised the assessment proceedings and supporting evidence, not merely the assessment order. Earlier calculations could be examined to correct an apparent foundational or arithmetical error. Written-down values were not eternally binding in later years.
Source: Primary report: SCR 557–560
03 · Judicial decision
Section 35 could support correction of apparent mistakes found through record examination, though not errors discoverable only by argument. The taxpayer had actual notice, discussions and reasonable opportunity; moreover the specified assessment-enhancement/refund-reduction contingencies were not present here.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The company’s appeal was dismissed with costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 562
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
The Court expressly declined to decide the validity of the 1953 explanation to the Part B States depreciation order. Its notice ruling assumes actual reasonable opportunity and does not authorize unannounced adverse rectification.
Source: Primary report: SCR 555, 557
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 16-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.