HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom
Review Petition (Civil) No. 16 of 1960 in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1956
[1962] Supp. 1 SCR 518 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 10(2)(xv)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; 2:1 majority judgment delivered by M. Hidayatullah, J. for himself and J. L. Kapur, J.; S. K. Das, J. dissenting. · S. K. Das, J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J.
Assessment years: 1946-47
01 · Facts of the case
The chank trader paid annual advance rent under a three-year agreement for the exclusive right to fish and carry away specified shells along a coastline, subject to extraction and output restrictions. It claimed the Rs.6,111 annual payment as revenue expenditure (SCR pp.519-522, 534-537; PDF pp.2-5, 17-20).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The majority focused on the exclusive reserved source, speculative output and separate extraction operation: the payment acquired an enduring source right, not identified shells. Das J. dissented that the arrangement merely secured stock-in-trade and was analogous to supply contracts (SCR pp.519-545; PDF pp.2-28).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
By 2:1 majority Revenue's appeal was allowed, the payment held capital and no costs ordered (SCR p.545; PDF p.28).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue by majority; the detailed dissent supported the assessee's revenue characterization (SCR pp.519-545; PDF pp.2-28).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify what a supply or extraction payment secures. Duration, exclusivity, transfer limits, output uncertainty, extraction effort and linkage to quantities may distinguish stock acquisition from an enduring source right.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 28-page rehearing report read and visually inspected; the following report fragment on physical p.28 was excluded.
- Catalogue source S_1962_1_518_545: SHA-256 dc5e679c934efb1d51240ab033b62eb364bd0fe31d346698fb252d050831f362, 28 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 capital/revenue analysis; no current depreciation, later-treatment or citator clearance.
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.