HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I, Bombay v. Jubilee Mills Ltd., Bombay
Civil Appeal No. 525 of 1967
[1968] 2 SCR 539 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 23A(1) and 66(5)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by V. Ramaswami, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · V. Bhargava, J.
Assessment years: 1948-49
01 · Facts of the case
Jubilee Mills had suffered large losses before 1930. In 1930 it reduced its capital, adjusting a Rs.12,75,000 debit balance in the profit-and-loss account against paid-up capital and reducing the face value of its ordinary and preference shares. For assessment year 1948-49, the company was assessed on Rs.7,47,639; after tax, the section 23A balance available for distribution was Rs.4,20,548. Although a dividend of at least Rs.2,52,358 was prima facie required to avoid section 23A, it declared only Rs.24,750, and the Income-tax Officer deemed Rs.3,95,798 distributed. The Tribunal treated pre-reconstruction losses as wiped out and irrelevant. After an earlier Supreme Court remand on whether the public was substantially interested, the Bombay High Court answered the remaining loss question in the company's favour (SCR pp.540-542; PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 23A required the Income-tax Officer to consider whether, having regard to earlier losses or the smallness of profit, declaring a larger dividend would be unreasonable. Nothing in its text limited earlier losses to unadjusted or carried-forward amounts still appearing in the books. Commercial or accounting profits, rather than assessable profits alone, supplied the dividend-paying source. Absorbing losses by reducing capital did not remove their effect on the company's later financial position; retaining profits to rebuild crippled capital could be reasonable. The Tribunal therefore misdirected itself by refusing to consider the pre-reconstruction loss at all, although it could still conclude after considering that loss that a larger dividend should have been declared (SCR pp.543-546; PDF pp.5-8). Under section 66(5), disagreement with the Tribunal's legal construction required the Tribunal to rehear the parties and dispose of the appeal conformably with the High Court's opinion, not merely enter a formal order (SCR pp.546-547; PDF pp.8-9).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Supreme Court agreed that the Rs.12,75,000 loss incurred before the 1930 capital reconstruction was relevant under section 23A(1), dismissed Revenue's appeal with costs, and directed that the Tribunal rehear the company and the Commissioner and redetermine the case on the evidence and according to law under section 66(5) (SCR pp.546-547; PDF pp.8-9).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Jubilee Mills on the legal question and against Revenue's categorical exclusion of the earlier loss. The result was not a final merits determination of section 23A liability: the Tribunal was required to rehear and decide that issue (SCR pp.546-547; PDF pp.8-9).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in a historical reasonableness inquiry tied to dividend-paying capacity, distinguish book elimination of a loss from elimination of its economic effect. Build the record around commercial profits, capital impairment, reserve needs and the actual capacity to distribute. Also classify the relief correctly: this judgment resolved the governing legal approach but returned the ultimate section 23A merits to the Tribunal (based on SCR pp.543-547; PDF pp.5-9).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 9-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote and adjacent-report boundary text were distinguished from the judicial opinion and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 9-page count match catalogue asset 1968_2_539_547; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 525 of 1967, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
- No published or archived standalone AKHB note with this source hash, case identity and operative decision was found.
Statutory scope
The judgment construes the pre-1955 form of section 23A and the historical reference procedure in section 66(5) of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It does not determine present dividend-tax, accumulated-profit or appellate-remand rules. No current-law or later-treatment clearance was undertaken.
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.