HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
G. Ekambarappa & Others v. Excess Profits Tax Officer, Bellary
Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1966
[1967] 3 SCR 864 ·
Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940: section 15 · General Clauses Act, 1897: section 6(c) · Adaptation of Laws (No. 3) Order, 1956
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by V. Ramaswami, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J. · V. Ramaswami, J.
Assessment years: Chargeable accounting period 30 October 1943 to 30 October 1944
01 · Facts of the case
Bellary moved from Madras to Mysore and later fell within an area excluded from the Excess Profits Tax Act by a 1956 adaptation. A 1960 section 15 notice sought escaped profits of a dissolved 1934 partnership for a 1943-44 chargeable period (SCR pp.864-866; PDF pp.1-3).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Making the Act inapplicable to Bellary operated as a partial repeal, attracting section 6. Tax liability arose no later than the end of the chargeable accounting period; assessment only quantified it. That accrued liability and the remedy to enforce it survived repeal, so the escaped-profits notice remained valid (SCR pp.866-870; PDF pp.3-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court affirmed the Mysore High Court and dismissed the taxpayers' appeal with costs (SCR p.870; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue: proceedings for the pre-repeal escaped profits could continue (SCR pp.867-870; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in a repeal or territorial transition, separate creation of liability from later quantification and recovery, then read the saving clause. Modern transition statutes may alter the result and must be checked directly (based on SCR pp.866-870; PDF pp.3-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and seven-page count match catalogue asset 1967_3_864_870; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The case applies the repealed Excess Profits Tax Act and historical State-reorganisation adaptations; current repeal-saving and reassessment law was not examined.
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.