HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Civil Appeals Nos. 149 and 150 of 1961
[1962] Supp. 3 SCR 310 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(c), 4A, 6, 14(2)(c), 24(1), 24(2), 66(1) 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: 1950-51, 1951-52
01 · Facts of the case
The Indore textile company was treated as non-resident through assessment year 1949-50, so only British-India receipts and accruals entered its assessments. After integration it became resident and claimed the entire Rs.5,19,590 loss from 1948-49 against later income (SCR pp.312-317; PDF pp.3-8).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 24 was read with the charging and territorial provisions. Only loss within the taxable computation in the year it arose could be set off and carried forward. Later territorial integration and residence could not convert the previously excluded outside-territory portion into an eligible loss (SCR pp.317-323; PDF pp.8-14).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Both appeals were dismissed with costs and one hearing fee; the full historic loss could not be set off in the later years (SCR p.323; PDF p.14).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on the section 24 loss claim. The separate unabsorbed-depreciation question was not before the Court (SCR pp.312, 323; PDF pp.3, 14).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: preserve the loss-year residence, source and receipt geography, and the amount actually recognized in that year before testing later set-off. A later status or territory change does not itself alter historic eligibility.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 14-page SCR asset read and visually inspected; the preceding report fragment on physical p.1 was excluded.
- Catalogue source S_1962_3_310_323: SHA-256 48cdc520c0a5c71bff27ca18ba08eec34ea34678f68327b86b8467ddf267e4dd, 14 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
Pre-integration territory, Part B State and 1922 Act rules are historical and do not state current loss carry-forward law.
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.