HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Messrs. Best and Co.
Civil Appeals Nos. 682 and 683 of 1964
[1966] 2 SCR 480 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10 and 66(1)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by K. Subba Rao, J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1951-52, 1952-53
01 · Facts of the case
Best and Co. lost one terminable-at-will explosives agency among many and received sales-linked compensation over three years. It also agreed not to sell or accept a competing explosives agency for five years (SCR pp.481-483; preserved eSCR PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Loss of the ordinary agency caused no proved structural dislocation and produced trading receipts. The independent five-year restraint surrendered a competitive right and was capital on the law then applied. Because the payment served two distinct matters, reasonable apportionment was required (SCR pp.484-492; official complete JUDIS PDF pp.4-10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Both appeals were partly allowed; only the agency component was assessable, the restrictive-covenant component was capital, and each side bore its own costs in both courts (SCR p.492; official PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Mixed final result with reasonable apportionment directed (SCR pp.489-492; official PDF pp.7-10).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: examine business structure, the lost arrangement's operational role, restraint duration and independent consideration. Preserve contemporaneous evidence needed for a reasonable allocation (based on SCR pp.484-492; official PDF pp.4-10).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 10-page official JUDIS rendition read in full. The catalogue eSCR mirror was also read in full but repeats SCR 485 and omits SCR 487; the official rendition supplies the missing text. Its cover metadata inconsistently prints SCR 430, while the report body and eSCR pagination establish [1966] 2 SCR 480.
- Catalogue source 1966_2_480_492: SHA-256 f3fd954995d269de69d8e60a666d0eef4f36b90548c1849c7285872ec6e5a835, 13 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- A complete official JUDIS rendition was used for publication because the catalogue asset repeats SCR 485 and omits SCR 487; official SHA-256 1b7f1c32e6c618019a16ac00d55b58cb43a518c4f0bbe9581f4f1820212ed7c0, 10 pages.
- 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 historical result is not a current-law exemption for non-compete receipts; later statutory provisions require separate verification.
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.