HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City
Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1965
[1967] 1 SCR 768 ·
Wealth-tax Act, 1957: sections 2(m), 3, 7(1), 7(2)(a) and 27(1)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · V. Bhargava, J.
Assessment years: 1957-58
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1957-58 Standard Mills claimed, among other items, deductions in computing net wealth for Rs.29,44,421 estimated income-tax and Rs.25,02,675 stated as accrued gratuity under industrial awards. The assessing officer rejected the claims; later appellate stages produced different answers. The Bombay High Court denied the estimated-income-tax component and the gratuity deduction. In the Supreme Court the company challenged those two conclusions; the proposed-dividend item was not in issue.
Source: Claims, appellate history and questions before the Court: SCR pp.769-770 / PDF pp.2-3
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Following Kesoram Industries, estimated income-tax was a present liability—although payable after quantification—and therefore a 'debt owed' on the valuation date under section 2(m). Gratuity was different: under the awards, liability arose only when employment ended by death, incapacity, retirement, resignation or qualifying termination, so it was contingent and not a present debt. Section 7(2)(a) did not independently permit its deduction. Section 7 supplied machinery to value business assets as a whole; it did not compute net wealth or enlarge the debts deductible under section 2(m). Income-tax profit-computation authority concerning estimated retirement payments did not control the wealth-tax question.
Source: Present income-tax debt and contingent gratuity: SCR pp.770-773 / PDF pp.3-6; Section 7 asset valuation distinguished from net-wealth computation: SCR pp.774-776 / PDF pp.7-9
03 · Judicial decision
The appeal was allowed in part. The estimated income-tax deduction was answered for the company, while the gratuity deduction was answered against it. No order as to costs was made.
Source: Two-part answer and partial allowance: SCR p.776 / PDF p.9
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Mixed. The assessee succeeded on estimated income-tax but failed on contingent gratuity; the Court partly allowed the appeal and made no costs order.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: classify each claimed liability at the valuation date before considering quantum—an existing obligation awaiting quantification differs from an obligation triggered only by a future contingency. Keep the charging/net-wealth computation provisions separate from asset-valuation machinery. For current work, do not import this repealed wealth-tax holding into income-tax or employee-benefit accounting without checking the applicable statute, accounting framework and later decisions.
Source: AKHB analysis based on present-debt, contingency and valuation distinctions
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 9-page SCR report read; the editorial headnote on PDF p.1 was distinguished from Shah J.'s unnumbered opinion beginning on PDF p.2.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and nine-page count match catalogue asset 1967_1_768_776; all pages were read and visually checked.
- The report verifies Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1965, the 6 October 1966 decision date and the three-member bench.
- The appeal concerned only the estimated-income-tax part of referred question 2 and the gratuity question; the proposed-dividend question was not pressed below.
Statutory scope
The decision applies the since-repealed Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for AY 1957-58. Current accounting treatment of gratuity and any remaining tax analogue have not been checked.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Later tax, employment-benefit and accounting treatment has not been comprehensively checked; no current 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.