HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Express Newspapers Ltd., Madras
Civil Appeal No. 596 of 1963
[1964] 8 SCR 189 ·
Indian Income Tax Act, 1922: sections 6, 10(1), 10(2)(vii), 12B and 26(2)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
01 · Facts of the case
Free Press of India (Madras) Ltd. transferred newspaper-publication rights to Express Newspapers from 1 September 1946 and initially let its machinery and assets to it. Free Press entered voluntary liquidation on 31 October. On 1 November the liquidator confirmed the asset transfer, producing Rs. 6,08,666 above written-down value: Rs. 2,14,090 up to original cost and Rs. 3,94,576 above cost. Revenue assessed Express as successor; the Tribunal rejected the first component but accepted the capital-gains component, while the Madras High Court answered both references against Revenue (SCR pp.190–192; PDF pp.2–4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
For the applicable pre-amendment balancing-charge proviso, the Court required business in the previous year, machinery used in it and a sale while carrying on business rather than winding it up. The winding-up sale failed that test; the Court distinguished the substantive balancing-allowance rule considered in National Syndicate (SCR pp.193–199; PDF pp.5–11). Section 26(2) and its proviso concerned business income. The Court treated capital gains as a separate statutory head and confined section 12B’s fiction to deeming the year of income; it did not convert capital gains into business profits for successor assessment (SCR pp.199–204; PDF pp.11–16).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue’s appeal was dismissed with costs. Both negative reference answers were upheld: the Rs. 2,14,090 was not taxable under the applicable balancing-charge proviso, and section 26(2) did not permit assessment of the predecessor’s Rs. 3,94,576 capital gain in Express Newspapers’ hands (SCR pp.199 and 204; PDF pp.11 and 16).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee/respondent on both disputed components. The dismissal left the High Court’s answers intact; the capital-gains result concerned the statutory route for assessing the successor (SCR p.204; PDF p.16).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate the identity of the taxable person, the income head and the statutory version before analysing an asset-transfer assessment. Preserve the dates of business cessation, liquidation and transfer, and distinguish depreciation recapture from gains above original cost. This historical decision cannot substitute for examination of present successor-liability and asset-disposal provisions (based on SCR pp.193–204; PDF pp.5–16).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 16-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote was distinguished from the judgment text and operative order.
- The source report contains 16 pages. Reporter headnotes and adjacent-case text are distinguished from the target judgment and operative order.
- The primary source identifies Civil Appeal No. 596 of 1963, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
Statutory scope
The Court applied the historical section 10(2)(vii) proviso before its amendment to a 1946 sale and section 26(2) of the 1922 Act. It does not determine current depreciation recapture, capital gains or successor-liability provisions.
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.