HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 1963
[1965] 2 SCR 908 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 23, 31, 33, 34 and 66 · Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963: rules 29 and 39 · Constitution of India: Article 141
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
7-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by P. B. Gajendragadkar, C.J. · P. B. Gajendragadkar, C.J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · K. N. Wanchoo, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J. · R. S. Bachawat, J.
Assessment years: 1942-43
01 · Facts of the case
The Tribunal found Rs.6,71,735 received through cheques and hundis was not received in British India. On reference, the High Court twice directed supplemental findings and new evidence on unconditional discharge and postal remittance, then answered against the assessee (SCR pp.910-914; PDF pp.3-7).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 66(4) permitted additions or alterations from material already on the Tribunal record, not new evidence at reference stage. Stability under Article 141 warranted retaining settled precedent absent clear error or compelling consequences. Rule 39 was expressly left open (SCR pp.914-928; PDF pp.7-21).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside and the matter remitted for decision under the settled record-only rule, with no costs throughout (SCR p.928; PDF p.21).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee procedurally; the place of receipt and resulting tax liability remained undecided (SCR p.928; PDF p.21).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: build the evidentiary record before fact-finding closes; reference jurisdiction is not a substitute for omitted proof. Reconsidering precedent requires more than a plausible competing interpretation (based on SCR pp.914-928; PDF pp.7-21).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 21-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Catalogue source 1965_2_908_928: SHA-256 1740cb86ffe4ed66695c80f6c519d24e049210fae17075a54a8ef68abfbd360c, 21 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- The published original preserves the exact catalogue bytes and verified hash.
- The source verifies identity, bench, provisions, material opinion split and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment publication match was found.
Statutory scope
This is historical section 66 reference procedure; no automatic mapping to a modern appellate provision or current-law clearance is claimed.
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.