HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Anant Rao B. Kamat
Civil Appeals Nos. 687 and 688 of 1963
[1964] 8 SCR 263 ·
Indian Income Tax Act, 1922: sections 16(2) and 60A · Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1951-52, 1952-53
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee received dividends from two companies whose Part B State profits attracted rebates under the 1950 Concession Order. For two assessment years he sought grossing-up under section 16(2) at the Finance Act rate without reducing it for those rebates. The Income Tax Officer instead used the lower State rate; the Tribunal and Rajasthan High Court accepted the assessee’s position.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court gave effect to the words “without taking into account any rebate allowed”. Section 16(2) used the rate for the financial year of payment or credit, not the year in which the company earned profits. The Concession Order itself described the relief as rebate, and section 60A’s power to grant exemption or other modification was broad enough to support it. Neither a prescribed certificate form nor the source of the rebate narrowed the statutory term.
03 · Judicial decision
The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeals with costs and affirmed the assessee’s grossing-up method.
Source: Holding and operative order
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee/respondent. The concession-order rebate was ignored for the section 16(2) calculation.
Source: Operative result
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: when a tax formula specifies the relevant year, rate and adjustments to disregard, follow that sequence exactly. Administrative forms cannot override the statute, and labels used in concession instruments should be reconciled to the charging and computation provisions.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 10-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote was distinguished from the judgment text and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 10-page count match catalogue asset 1964_8_263_272; the full extracted report and operative pages were reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeals Nos. 687 and 688 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 ruling concerns the former dividend grossing-up system and Part B States concessions. That statutory mechanism is historical and not a statement of current dividend taxation.
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.