HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta
Civil Appeal No. 347 of 1955
[1959] Supp. (2) SCR 846 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sections 2(4), 10, 66 · Constitution, Article 136
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · N. H. Bhagwati · B. P. Sinha · J. L. Kapur
Assessment years: 1948–49
01 · Facts of the case
Engineer and businessman contracted for a residential-development plot, paying Rs 32,748, then assigned rights for profit after requisition delays and declining construction activity. Revenue treated Rs 74,485 profit as trading income; appellate commissioner treated it as capital gain; Tribunal restored trading assessment.
Source: Primary report: SCR 848–853
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Majority assessed total circumstances of isolated transaction outside usual business. Means, instalment terms, possible house/workshop use and changed circumstances did not establish dominant trading intention; expectation of appreciation alone was insufficient. Kapur dissented on procedure and fact-finding, favouring remand for omitted essential facts rather than outright relief.
Source: Primary report: SCR 853–868
03 · Judicial decision
By Bhagwati and Sinha majority, Department failed to establish adventure in nature of trade. Kapur would remit to Tribunal for proper findings and determination.
Source: Primary report: SCR 864–868
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Appeal allowed with costs by majority; Tribunal orders set aside. Do not label remand dissent as operative or assert all taxation—including capital gains—was exempted.
Source: Primary report: SCR 865, 868
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Single transactions can be trade; this outcome rests on total facts and failure of proof, not a universal one-sale exemption. Preserve dissent and limited income-head issue.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 23-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.