HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Kalooram Govindram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur
Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1964
[1965] 3 SCR 641 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10(2)(vi) and 10(5) · Finance Act, 1950: application to Part B States
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; majority by K. Subba Rao, J.; J. C. Shah, J. dissenting. · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1950-51
01 · Facts of the case
At partition, two HUF branches competitively bid for indivisible assets. Govindram's branch obtained the Jaora sugar factory at a genuine Rs.34 lakh value with cash equalisation, then claimed depreciation on that amount (SCR pp.643-644; PDF pp.3-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The majority treated partition as crystallising absolute title and the real auction value as cost of the entire specific asset, absent fraud or artificial valuation. Shah J. would preserve historical cost for the pre-existing 10/16 share and use auction-derived cost only for the acquired 6/16 (SCR pp.644-654; PDF pp.4-14).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
By 2:1 majority the appeal was allowed with costs in both courts and depreciation directed on the takeover valuation (SCR pp.647, 654; PDF pp.7, 14).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee by majority, limited to qualifying depreciable assets and the genuine partition value (SCR pp.644-654; PDF pp.4-14).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: distinguish a real allocation value for indivisible property from a notional book figure. Document competitive bidding, absence of collusion and the majority/dissent treatment of pre-existing and acquired shares (based on SCR pp.644-654; PDF pp.4-14).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 14-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Catalogue source 1965_3_641_654: SHA-256 a9cfc968358b18899ab1824970c5f793c8fcc2d814707be736b22f191dd27e81, 14 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
The case applies repealed 1922 Act actual-cost rules to an unusual court-supervised partition; current anti-abuse and HUF rules were not checked.
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.