HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal
Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1967
[1971] 3 SCR 351 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10(1), 10(2)(xi), 10(2)(xv), 18(3B) and 18(7)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: Assessment year not printed; previous year ended 31 December 1954
01 · Facts of the case
The aluminium manufacturer paid annual technical-assistance retainers to a Montreal company under a 1947 agreement that contained no tax-free or gross-up stipulation. It failed to deduct tax and was treated as an assessee in default for Rs.1,24,199. The collaborator refused reimbursement, and the company wrote off the amount in the previous year ended 31 December 1954, claiming it as a bad debt or business expenditure. The Tribunal and High Court rejected the claim.
Source: SCR pp. 351-354 / PDF pp. 1-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
A deductible trade debt had to arise directly from, and be incidental to, the business. The withholding amount arose from statutory non-compliance, not as a trading debt owed by the collaborator. Preserving the business relationship did not transform it into a bad debt. Nor was the default payment expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for business: the assessee was bound to withhold, the contract did not shift that liability, and payment followed its own statutory default.
Source: SCR pp. 354-356 / PDF pp. 4-6
03 · Judicial decision
The Supreme Court found no basis to disturb the High Court’s answer. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed with costs.
Source: SCR p. 356 / PDF p. 6
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue: the payer’s TDS-default payment was not allowed as a bad debt or business expenditure on these facts. The decision did not disallow the underlying technical-assistance fee itself.
Source: SCR pp. 355-356 / PDF pp. 5-6
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate the underlying cross-border service fee, contractual gross-up or indemnity, tax withheld, interest, penalty and any payer-default recovery. Preserve the agreement and remittance evidence. A voluntary commercial decision not to recover tax is not automatically a trading debt; current consequences require the applicable withholding and deduction provisions.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 354-356 / PDF pp. 4-6
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-page SCR report read, separating the editorial headnote from the judicial text.
- Full source read; exact original bytes match the catalogue SHA-256. Judicial text is unnumbered, so SCR and PDF page pinpoints are used.
Statutory scope
The case applies the 1922 Act to a payer’s own historical withholding default. It does not determine current gross-up contracts, section 40 consequences, indemnities, interest or penalty deductibility under later law.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent treatment has not been verified; no current 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.