HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
The Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay and connected appeals
Civil Appeal Nos. 599-602 of 1962
[1964] 5 SCR 216 ·
Saurashtra Income-tax Ordinance, 1949: section 13(5)(b) · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 10(5)(b) · Taxation Laws (Part B States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1950: paragraph 2
Holding and result. Depreciation that should have been allowed on a proper claim reduced written-down value under the Saurashtra Ordinance; the Removal of Difficulties Order also required depreciation actually allowed under the Bhavnagar War Profits Act to be taken into account.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Three-judge bench; judgment delivered by K. C. Das Gupta, J. · A. K. Sarkar, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · K. C. Das Gupta, J.
Assessment years: 1949-50, 1951-52
01 · Facts of the case
Bhavnagar businesses disputed reductions to written-down value after Saurashtra and then the Union income-tax regime applied. The Officer deducted depreciation that would have been allowable earlier and depreciation availed under the Bhavnagar War Profits Act.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The phrase “would have been allowed” meant depreciation that should have been allowed on a proper claim if the 1922 Act had applied. Once the Central Government made the Removal of Difficulties Order, the assessing officer applied its terms without re-deciding whether a difficulty arose in each case. The War Profits Act fell within the Order’s business-profits-tax language.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
Both the notional earlier depreciation and depreciation actually availed under the Bhavnagar War Profits Act reduced written-down value under the respective transitional provisions.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
All assessee appeals dismissed with one set of costs.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: for legacy written-down-value disputes, reconstruct the exact transitional chain and distinguish depreciation actually allowed from depreciation deemed allowable under the governing text.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 15-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 15-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.