HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Others
Civil Appeal No. 250 of 1963
[1964] 7 SCR 776 ·
Indian Income Tax Act, 1922: sections 2(15), 4(1), 10, 10(2), 12 and 13 proviso
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1949-50
01 · Facts of the case
A firm formed in December 1947 acquired four-year exploitation rights in the film 'Apoorva Chinthamani' for Rs. 1,00,000 for specified territories. For the previous year 25 December 1947 to 2 August 1948, corresponding to assessment year 1949-50, it credited receipts of Rs. 1,46,849 and debited operating expenses and the entire Rs. 1,00,000 acquisition outlay, but credited no value for the unexpired rights. The Income Tax Officer valued the closing rights at Rs. 65,000 and computed profit at Rs. 93,642; the appellate authority affirmed, and the Tribunal reduced the closing value to Rs. 40,000. The Madras High Court held that cash accounting did not permit this closing-stock addition (SCR pp.776–780; PDF pp.1–5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 13 ordinarily required computation according to the regularly employed accounting method, but its proviso imposed a duty to consider whether profits could properly be deduced from that method and permitted a suitable basis where they could not. The authorities had not rewritten the books on a mercantile basis; they had addressed the omission of closing stock from a trading computation (SCR pp.780–783; PDF pp.5–8). Whatever the cash, mercantile or hybrid method, annual profit in a trading venture could not ordinarily be deduced while debiting the acquisition cost of stock and ignoring the stock's year-end value. Otherwise profit would be deferred until the initial outlay was recovered and trading profit could be transformed into capital through entries. Ordinary commercial accounting therefore required opening and closing stock, subject to statutory rules and adjustments appropriate to the asset and business (SCR pp.783–789; PDF pp.8–14).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court allowed Revenue's appeal, answered the referred question in the affirmative and awarded Revenue costs in the Supreme Court and High Court. The Income Tax Officer was entitled to add the year-end stock-in-trade value in order properly to deduce the firm's profit (SCR p.789; PDF p.14).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue. Cash-system bookkeeping did not justify omitting the remaining value of the film-exploitation rights after the full acquisition cost had been debited (SCR pp.784–789; PDF pp.9–14).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify the asset's actual trading character and trace both the opening/acquisition debit and its closing value. A chosen accounting method does not control if, on the governing historical provision, it fails to disclose annual profit. Preserve the Tribunal's accepted valuation and distinguish an adjustment needed for true profit from a wholesale substitution of accounting systems. Recheck the applicable later statute and accounting rules before applying the principle to modern film or digital rights (based on SCR pp.780–789; PDF pp.5–14).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 14-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote was distinguished from the judgment text and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 14-page count match catalogue asset 1964_7_776_789; the full extracted report and operative pages were reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 250 of 1963, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
- No published AKHB note or archived reviewed record with this source hash, case identity and operative decision was found.
Statutory scope
The decision applies the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 to assessment year 1949-50. It does not certify the treatment of film rights, inventory or accounting methods under later legislation or current accounting standards.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. 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.