HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd.
Civil Appeals Nos. 859 and 860 of 1966
[1971] 1 SCR 452 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 22(1), 22(2A), 22(3), 24(2) and 34(3)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; majority judgment delivered by A. N. Grover, J.; J. C. Shah, J. dissented. · J. C. Shah, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1953-54, 1954-55
01 · Facts of the case
The company voluntarily filed loss returns in January 1956 after the section 22(1) period but before any assessment. The officer refused to determine or carry forward the losses as late (SCR pp.452-456; PDF pp.1-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The majority read section 22(3) with sections 22(1) and 22(2A): a return filed before assessment was valid and treated as within the relevant filing framework, subject to the outer section 34(3) limit. The dissent viewed section 22(2A)'s time condition as deliberate and controlling for carry-forward (SCR pp.456-464; PDF pp.5-13).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
By majority, Revenue's appeals were dismissed with costs (SCR p.464; PDF p.13).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee by majority: the losses had to be determined and could be carried forward under the historical scheme (SCR pp.463-464; PDF pp.12-13).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: do not generalize this historical liberal construction into modern late-loss-return relief. Identify the governing return provision, express deadline, condonation mechanism and outer limitation for the relevant year (based on SCR pp.461-464; PDF pp.10-13).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 13-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 13-page count match catalogue asset 1971_1_452_464; 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 majority construes loss-return provisions of the repealed 1922 Act; current filing deadlines and carry-forward conditions are materially statutory and require fresh checking.
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.