HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 501 of 1957
[1962] 1 SCR 788 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10(2)(vii) fourth proviso, 33(4), 59 and 66(1), (2), (4), (5) · Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1946 (Act VIII of 1946) · Income-tax Rules: rule 22A and form R(T)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous dismissal. T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, J. wrote for four judges; J. C. Shah, J. concurred separately in the result but differed on the general scope of reference jurisdiction. · S. K. Das, J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, J.
Assessment years: 1946-47
01 · Facts of the case
The requisitioned steamship El Madina was lost through enemy action in March 1944. Compensation exceeded its original cost, recovering depreciation of Rs.9,26,532. Revenue included that amount for assessment year 1946-47 under the fourth proviso to section 10(2)(vii). The assessee had disputed the receipt year before the Tribunal. On reference it instead argued that the amending proviso was not in force on 1 April 1946. The High Court accepted that contention despite Revenue's jurisdictional objection (SCR pp.791-795; PDF pp.4-8).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The four-judge opinion held that a question arises from the Tribunal's order when raised and decided, raised but omitted (deemed decided), or decided though not raised; one neither raised nor considered does not qualify merely because it arises from the facts. But a new legal aspect of the same referred question is permissible. Here the amendment's applicability fell within whether the specified Rs.9,26,532 was properly included. General wording cannot admit unrelated questions: the statement of case fixes the true scope. Shah J. agreed with the result but rejected importing the narrower general restriction. Both opinions are preserved (SCR pp.810-823; PDF pp.23-36).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs. The amendment did not operate retrospectively from 1 April 1946, so the High Court's negative answer stood. Revenue's further attempt to tax recouped depreciation as profits of the assessment year was itself rejected as an entirely new point outside the reference (SCR p.816; PDF p.29; concurrence concludes SCR p.823 / PDF p.36).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee: the disputed Rs.9,26,532 was not taxable under that proviso for assessment year 1946-47. All five judges agreed on dismissal; the division concerned the wider jurisdictional reasoning, not operative relief (SCR pp.816-823; PDF pp.29-36).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate the legal question actually at issue from additional arguments supporting it, and read the reference with the statement of case. Preserve questions before the Tribunal and in the reference application. Independently test the commencement and retrospective terms of the exact taxing provision; prior depreciation alone does not establish a charging route.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 36-page SCR asset read in page-preserving text and rendered/viewed, including both opinions; reasons begin on PDF p.4 / SCR p.791. Preceding Subbarama Naidu fragment on p.1 and following Madan Lal Arora report on p.36 excluded. Identity, signed date, bench and docket verified; no same-party, docket, source-hash or standalone judgment match. Existing citations to Scindia in other notes are not duplicate publication.
- Catalogue source 1962_1_788_823: SHA-256 701c2658f8a690abc7c9fe62d2b8d8aa281c30605693636ea7a37c889d481916, 36 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- The published original preserves the exact catalogue bytes and verified hash.
- The source verifies identity, bench, provisions, opinion structure and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment publication match was found.
Statutory scope
Historical section 66 advisory-reference procedure and 1946 amendment; do not transpose automatically to present appellate jurisdiction or recapture rules.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.