HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. P. M. Rathod & Co.
Civil Appeal No. 373 of 1957
[1960] (1) SCR 401 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 66(1); Sale of Goods Act, 1930: section 25; Contract Act, 1872: section 148
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · B. P. Sinha · J. L. Kapur · M. Hidayatullah
Assessment years: 1950-51
01 · Facts of the case
Ratlam perfumery manufacturers sent goods to Part A/C State buyers by value-payable post or by rail with self railway receipts released by banks only against price. They claimed Part B State concessional rates because money was remitted to Ratlam.
Source: Primary report: SCR 403–406
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
For value-payable delivery, the post office collected as seller’s agent and the seller retained disposal control until payment. Banks similarly received price as seller’s agent against railway receipts. Later remittance to Ratlam did not move the original receipt. The Court reframed the second reference question to reflect the actual collection transaction.
Source: Primary report: SCR 406–410
03 · Judicial decision
Both streams were receipts in Part A/C States; the claimed Part B concession was unavailable.
Source: Primary report: SCR 409–410
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal was allowed, with costs in the Court and High Court.
Source: Primary report: SCR 410
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Identify first receipt through an agent and conditional appropriation; distinguish a bank draft remittance from collection of price by the bank. Part A/B/C State tax treatment is historical, not a current territorial classification.
Source: Primary report: SCR 406–410
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 10-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.