HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Punjab Produce and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta
Civil Appeal No. 1344 of 1967
[1971] Supp. SCR 977 ·
Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 23A(9), Explanation (b)(iii), 34(1) and 34(3)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by A. N. Grover, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1955-56
01 · Facts of the case
The company had seventeen shareholders, but fewer than six held shares carrying more than half the voting power. It declared no dividend for assessment year 1955-56. The officer imposed additional super-tax under section 23A, and the appellate authorities and High Court rejected the company's public-interest and limitation objections (SCR pp.977-981; PDF pp.1-5).
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The negative conditions in Explanation (b)(iii) required both that affairs were not controlled by fewer than six persons and that the majority voting shares were not held by fewer than six. Satisfying only one branch was insufficient. A section 23A additional super-tax direction was not an assessment order attracting section 34(3)'s limitation period (SCR pp.981-983; PDF pp.5-7).
03 · Judicial decision
Both questions were resolved against the company, and its appeal was dismissed with costs.
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue under the historical section 23A regime.
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: when a definition uses multiple negative control conditions, test each branch and the connective wording rather than relying on one favourable fact. Use this as a historical interpretation example only; verify the governing modern company and tax provisions independently.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete seven-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected.
- Exact catalogue hash and seven-page count verified; every page was read and inspected.
- The report verifies the shareholding facts, assessment year and dismissal with costs.
Statutory scope
The ruling concerns repealed company-distribution and super-tax provisions under the 1922 Act.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No current-law analogy or comprehensive later-treatment review 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.