HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v. Helen Rubber Industries Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 466 of 1960
[1962] Supp. 2 SCR 605 ·
Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121 M.E.: section 32 · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 24(2), 66(2) and 66A(2) · Indian Finance Act, 1950: sections 3, 12 and 13(1) · Taxation Laws (Part B States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1950: paragraph 3
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by M. Hidayatullah, J. · B. P. Sinha, C.J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · J. R. Mudholkar, J.
Assessment years: 1951-52
01 · Facts of the case
The Travancore company reported losses for 1946-48 after its factory lessee stopped paying. The issue was whether the 1946 loss could reach assessment year 1951-52 after extension of Indian income-tax law (SCR pp.606-608; PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The 1950 transition created a line between State-law and Indian-law periods. Paragraph 3 preserved pre-transition losses only in the same manner, extent and years allowed by State law; it did not enlarge the earlier two-year entitlement (SCR pp.608-612; PDF pp.4-8).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue's appeal was allowed; the High Court answer displaced, with costs below and no Supreme Court costs order (SCR p.612; PDF p.8).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue; carry-forward of the 1946 loss into assessment year 1951-52 was denied (SCR pp.611-612; PDF pp.7-8).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: a successor statute's general period does not enlarge a pre-transition loss when a specific savings rule preserves only the earlier entitlement. Build separate timelines for loss year, transition and claimed set-off year.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 8-page SCR asset read and visually inspected; adjacent Raghava Reddi text at the start was excluded.
- Catalogue source S_1962_2_605_612: SHA-256 43421f58c539bc85f080570ef102c2efa4012446b4cabf9eaa7cd48ee5878e08, 8 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 Travancore transition and 1922 Act rules; not current section 72 or later-code guidance.
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.