HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Qamar Shaffi Tyabji v. Commissioner, Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad
Civil Appeals Nos. 324 and 325 of 1957
[1960] 3 SCR 546 ·
Hyderabad Excess Profits Tax Act: section 48(3) · Indian Contract Act, 1872: section 194
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · S. K. Das · J. L. Kapur · M. Hidayatullah
Assessment years: Chargeable accounting periods 1351F and 1352F
01 · Facts of the case
The Industrial Trust Fund trustees delegated their managing and selling agency of two mills to the appellant under a 1938 agreement. He received monthly remuneration and commission but argued he was an employee rather than conducting business for excess-profits-tax purposes.
Source: Primary report: SCR 547–551
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The original agency agreements authorised nomination of another agent with the mills’ approval. Under section 194 the appellant was an agent of the principals, not merely a servant or sub-agent. Extensive management powers, tenure, remuneration and termination terms showed a business undertaking despite general trustee control and non-assignment.
Source: Primary report: SCR 551–553
03 · Judicial decision
On the agreements read as a whole, the appellant carried on a managing-agency business; the remuneration and commission were business income liable to excess profits tax.
Source: Primary report: SCR 552–553
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Both assessee appeals were dismissed with one set of costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 553
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Determine employment versus agency from contractual powers and actual control, not a payment’s label or the individual status of the recipient. Preserve the historical Hyderabad tax context.
Source: Primary report: SCR 551–553
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 8-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
- Primary image at SCR 547 / PDF 2 reads Civil Appeals 324 and 325 of 1957 and High Court judgment dated 10 April 1953. Prior draft 824/825 and 1958 were OCR errors, now corrected.
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.