HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi v. M/s. Chuni Lal Moonga Ram
Civil Appeals Nos. 39 and 40 of 1960
[1962] 2 SCR 823 ·
Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940: section 5, third proviso · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10(1), 14(2)(c), 24(1), 42, 66(2) and 66A(2)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by S. K. Das, J. · S. K. Das, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J.
Assessment years: 1946-47, Excess-profits-tax chargeable accounting period ending 6 February 1946
01 · Facts of the case
The Delhi bullion firm entered telephone, letter and telegram forward transactions with Bhatinda parties, without a branch or agent there and without intended delivery. It claimed losses of Rs.6,366 and Rs.16,615. The Tribunal allowed the losses and the Punjab High Court answered the income-tax and excess-profits-tax reference questions for the firm (SCR pp.824-827; PDF pp.2-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Revenue conceded that the income-tax answer could not be disputed in view of Indo-Mercantile Bank. Excess profits tax required a separate analysis: the third proviso to section 5 excluded the Indian-State part of the business and deemed it separate, so its losses could not reduce the taxable business profits. The High Court could not replace the factual premise that the losses arose in Bhatinda with its own finding of Delhi accrual. The Court expressly accepted that the proviso would not apply if the whole income had arisen in Delhi (SCR pp.827-832; PDF pp.5-10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Civil Appeal No.39 of 1960 was dismissed; Civil Appeal No.40 of 1960 was allowed. The excess-profits-tax reference question was answered for Revenue and against the firm. Because success was divided, each party bore its own costs in both appeals (SCR p.832; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Mixed final result: assessee on income tax, following Revenue's concession; Revenue on excess profits tax because the Bhatinda loss belonged to the separately excluded business (SCR pp.827, 832; PDF pp.5, 10).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: prepare a separate charging, territorial-scope and loss-computation analysis for each tax statute; an income-tax result need not control a different levy. Preserve the Tribunal's factual findings and the reference questions rather than recasting the transaction geography at the reference stage. The decision is confined to its historical statutory setting.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 10-page SCR asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; the complete judgment runs from SCR 823 to 832.
- Catalogue source 1962_2_823_832: SHA-256 2f2ced324a70c43b49ca218a6a718aa7697a453ab5bfa84c39714321765151bd, 10 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 1922 Act and Excess Profits Tax Act territorial rules concerning an Indian State outside British India; no automatic application to current cross-border loss or speculation provisions.
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.