HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Laxmipat Singhania v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 1967
[1969] 1 SCR 904 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 4(1)(b), 16(2), 23A(1), 23A(4) and 66(1)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1940-41, 1943-44
01 · Facts of the case
Atherton West and Company Ltd., Kanpur was a company in which the public were not substantially interested. After it failed at its 22 April 1939 general meeting to declare the statutory level of dividend, the Income-tax Officer made a section 23A order on 18 November 1940 deeming Rs.3,32,691 distributed at that meeting. The shareholders' proportions were determined on 12 December 1941 but were not included in their appropriate assessments. On 24 April 1942 the company resolved to distribute Rs.2,98,000 from reserve, and Rs.23,328 was later credited to appellant shareholder Laxmipat Singhania. The officer taxed that credit in assessment year 1943-44; the Tribunal agreed and the Allahabad High Court answered the section 66(1) reference for Revenue (SCR pp.905-906; PDF pp.2-3).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 23A(1) deemed the undistributed amount distributed among shareholders on the general-meeting date and expressly required each proportionate share to be included in the shareholder's total income. Read with sections 16(2) and 4(1)(b), that fiction fixed the relevant previous year; the officer had no option to ignore accrual and tax the amount in another year on later receipt (SCR pp.906-908; PDF pp.3-5). Section 23A(4) was designed to prevent the same income being taxed once as a deemed distribution and again on actual distribution. It did not create a fallback election to tax actual receipt because the earlier amount had not been assessed in the year expressly required by law (SCR pp.908-909; PDF pp.5-6).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court discharged the High Court's affirmative answer and answered the referred question in the negative. The Rs.23,328 could not be taxed in assessment year 1943-44 on the basis of the later credit after the statute had fixed the earlier deemed-distribution year. The appeal was allowed with costs in the Supreme Court; the High Court's no-costs order was left undisturbed (SCR p.909; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Laxmipat Singhania/the assessee-appellant. The later-year dividend assessment failed because the statutory fiction had attached the income to the earlier year (SCR pp.908-909; PDF pp.5-6).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: where legislation deems income to accrue or be distributed on a specified event, map the statutory event, relevant previous year, assessment year and any later cash receipt separately. An administrative failure to assess the statutorily prescribed year does not itself create authority to move the income to a later receipt year. Apply that discipline to the exact current provision independently; this historical section 23A ruling supplies no present-law dividend clearance (based on SCR pp.907-909; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-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 6-page count match catalogue asset 1969_1_904_909; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 1188 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 decision construes the then-operative deemed-distribution machinery in section 23A of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, together with sections 4(1)(b) and 16(2). It does not establish the timing or taxability of dividends under later legislation. 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.