HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co., Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Tax, Bombay
Civil Appeal No. 305 of 1955
[1960] 3 SCR 557 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 4(1)(b)(i) · Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940: section 5 third proviso · Indian Income-tax Act 1922, section 14(2)(c)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · S. K. Das · J. L. Kapur · M. Hidayatullah
Assessment years: 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48
01 · Facts of the case
Managing agents of three shipping/trading companies claimed that part of their commission accrued outside British India because freight was collected and commission received in Cochin. The Tribunal found that practically all genuine managing-agency services were performed in Bombay.
Source: Primary report: SCR 558–564
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The place where the services earning commission were performed governed accrual; a percentage-of-freight calculation and receipt arrangements did not establish foreign performance. The Court distinguished the managed company’s business from the managing agents’ services and left theoretical apportionment questions open.
Source: Primary report: SCR 564–569
03 · Judicial decision
On the factual findings, the commission accrued in Bombay. The High Court correctly answered the reference against the agents.
Source: Primary report: SCR 568–570
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The assessee appeal was dismissed with costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 570
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Identify the actual income-producing services before using a payment place or remuneration formula to infer accrual. The decision does not establish that managing-agency income can never be apportioned where real services occur at several places.
Source: Primary report: SCR 568–570
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 14-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
- Docket visually verified at SCR 558 / PDF 2: Civil Appeal 305 of 1955; no docket inferred from OCR.
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.