HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
State of Orissa v. Shyam Sundar Patnaik
Civil Appeal Nos. 382-384 of 1964
[1966] 2 SCR 402 ·
Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947: section 10 · Schedule to the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947: clause B and Explanation
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 (opening statement; later narrative contains a conflicting year)
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee represented an undivided family consisting of the sons of two deceased brothers. In agricultural income-tax assessments the family sought the Schedule’s treatment for a family consisting of brothers only. The Tribunal and High Court accepted that treatment. A second referred question concerned income from sale of milk; the State did not contest the High Court’s answer to that question before the Supreme Court.
Source: SCR pp. 403-404 / PDF pp. 2-3
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 10 ordinarily treated total agricultural income of an HUF as that of one individual, but the proviso adopted special Schedule rates for a family consisting of brothers only as explained there. The Explanation extended brother to include a brother’s son, grandson and widow. The Court incorporated that extended meaning into clause B and held that the family consisting of sons of the deceased brothers qualified. The Court recorded that the separate milk question was not challenged because it was considered concluded by Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy.
Source: SCR pp. 404-405 / PDF pp. 3-4
03 · Judicial decision
The State’s appeals were dismissed without an order as to costs. The HUF’s eligibility for the special Schedule rate treatment stood upheld.
Source: SCR p. 405 / PDF p. 4
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The assessee HUF succeeded on the disputed meaning of brothers only. The milk-income answer was not independently contested or freshly adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Source: SCR pp. 404-405 / PDF pp. 3-4
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: apply the definition and Explanation attached to the particular taxing provision, rather than ordinary family terminology. Establish the genealogy and statutory share calculation before applying a rate concession. Do not use the headnote’s milk-income description as a standalone dairy-tax proposition: it conflicts with the reproduced question, while the Supreme Court expressly confined the contested issue to the HUF rate definition.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 403-405 / PDF pp. 2-4
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full four-page SCR scan read; judgment begins at SCR p. 403. Headnote and body discrepancies are expressly identified.
- Full original source PDF read; exact downloaded bytes match the source catalogue SHA-256.
- The opening identifies years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53; a later assessment recital says 1953-54. No silent correction is made.
- The headnote describes milk income as agricultural; the question reproduced in the judgment concerns its being non-agricultural. The judgment records that the issue was not challenged before the Court, and this note does not derive a fresh dairy-tax holding from the inconsistent headnote.
Statutory scope
This ruling concerns the historical Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947 and its particular Schedule. It does not establish a general HUF definition or current central income-tax rate concession.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. The complete identified judgment/order has been checked. Later proceedings, statutory amendments and comprehensive subsequent judicial treatment have not been verified; this note does not represent current citator clearance.
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.