HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa, Patna
Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 1967
[1971] Supp. SCR 963 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 66(1); business-expense capital/revenue distinction
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1951-52
01 · Facts of the case
After a short lease expired, the assessee continued working Bihar’s Murli Hills limestone quarry as Government agent, with a prospect of a further lease. Kalyanpur Lime Company sued the State and assessee for specific performance or damages. The assessee defended the suit and ultimately was also held liable in damages. For AY 1951-52 it claimed Rs. 1,29,994 litigation expenses. The Tribunal found those expenses protected its existing business; the High Court instead treated them as connected with acquiring a new asset.
Source: SCR pp. 964-966 / PDF pp. 2-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The relevant inquiry was whether expenditure created, cured or completed title to capital, or protected an operating business. The assessee had been made a defendant because it was working the quarry and faced its own damages claim. Its defence was therefore reasonably understood as protection of that business, rather than pursuit of a future lease. Applying Shree Meenakshi Mills, failure in the civil proceeding did not itself defeat a deduction if the expense was honestly and reasonably incurred wholly and exclusively for business.
Source: SCR pp. 965-967 / PDF pp. 3-5
03 · Judicial decision
The High Court’s answer was revoked and the referred question answered affirmatively in favour of the assessee. The identified litigation expenses were revenue expenditure for business. The assessee received costs in both the Supreme Court and High Court.
Source: SCR p. 967 / PDF p. 5
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on its litigation-expense deduction. The outcome does not reverse the underlying civil damages decision or decide the tax treatment of the damages themselves.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: retain the pleadings, claims and legal-bill descriptions to show whether litigation protects continuing operations or seeks a new capital asset. Separate defence costs from settlement amounts, damages and acquisition expenditure. An adverse result is not enough by itself to classify a bona fide business defence as capital, but the expense’s actual purpose and applicable statutory restrictions remain essential.
Source: SCR pp. 965-967 / PDF pp. 3-5
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Five-page SCR scan. Complete judicial text and disposition reviewed; editorial headnote distinguished from reasoning. Unnumbered judicial text; SCR/PDF page pinpoints supplied.
- Full judicial source text read. Exact original bytes match source-index SHA-256; public mirror scan, not a certified court copy.
Statutory scope
Historical statute and assessment facts control. No automatic Income-tax Act, 2025 crosswalk or present-law certification.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent judicial treatment and current-law applicability remain unverified. No current-law assurance 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.