HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. A. Dharma Reddy, Morthad
Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 1966
[1969] 3 SCR 782 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(4), 16(1)(b), 23(5) and 24(2)(ii) · Finance Act, 1955: section 16
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by A. N. Grover, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1955-56, 1956-57
01 · Facts of the case
The individual assessee derived income as a partner in several firms, including two separate firms dealing or contracting in bidi leaves. His two-partner firm, A. Dharma Reddy, Morthad, sustained a Rs.30,255 loss in AY 1955-56 and dissolved on 31 March 1955; after other set-offs, Rs.24,532 remained. A four-partner firm, A. Dharma Reddy & Co., Ditchpally, continued bidi-leaf business in AY 1956-57 and produced an estimated Rs.11,853 share of profit for him. Although the two firms filed separately, were assessed separately and had no succession relationship, the assessee claimed his personal unabsorbed share against his later business income. The Income-tax Officer and first appellate authority refused; the Tribunal and Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the claim (SCR pp.783-785; PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The amended section 24(2)(ii) required that the business in which the individual suffered the loss continue to be carried on by him; it did not require the identical partnership concern to persist. Dissolution of the first firm therefore did not end the assessee's bidi-leaf business while he continued the same systematic and organised activity in partnership with others. The statutory definition of business focused on continuing trade or commercial activity, not the constitution of the partnership through which it was conducted (SCR pp.785-787; PDF pp.4-6). Under sections 16(1)(b) and 23(5), a registered firm's profits were apportioned and partners were assessed; the carried-forward loss belonged only to the partner who incurred it. The Court relied on analogous authorities permitting continuity through a changed mode of carrying on the same business (SCR pp.787-788; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court upheld the High Court's conclusion that the assessee continued the business in which he had sustained the earlier loss and was entitled to the claimed set-off under section 24(2)(ii). Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs (SCR p.788; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of A. Dharma Reddy/the assessee. His carried-forward share of the dissolved firm's loss remained available against his later share of income from the continued bidi-leaf business; the relief did not extend to the new firm or its other partners (SCR pp.787-788; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: for a partner-level loss under this historical regime, trace the loss to the individual, identify the commercial activity rather than only the firm's legal shell, and prove that the same individual continued that activity in the set-off year. Then verify the exact statute-year language: this result turned expressly on the post-1955 wording and should not be assumed under a later loss rule (based on SCR pp.785-788; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-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 7-page count match catalogue asset 1969_3_782_788; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 1057 of 1966, 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 ruling construes section 24(2)(ii) of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 as amended by the Finance Act, 1955, together with the then taxation of registered-firm partners. It is not a ruling on current partnership or loss carry-forward provisions, and no later-treatment or current-law 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.