HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Patiala
Civil Appeals Nos. 1970-1973 of 1968
[1972] 1 SCR 639 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 9(1)(iv) · Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance XV of 1949
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by K. S. Hegde, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1952-53, 1955-56, 1956-57
01 · Facts of the case
A firm bought Lahore's Nedous Hotel with borrowings before Partition. After the property vested in Pakistan's Custodian, the firm returned nil annual value but claimed interest losses; the Tribunal allowed them and the High Court reversed (SCR pp.639-642; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Custodian could possess, collect income, control dealings and in defined cases sell or demolish, while the evacuee retained only a residual interest. Section 9 taxed property income; its owner was the person exercising operative rights in their own right, not a person unable to control or receive the income (SCR pp.642-650; PDF pp.4-12).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held the assessee was not owner for section 9 and dismissed all four appeals without costs (SCR p.650; PDF p.12).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue: the claimed property-interest losses failed because operative ownership lay with the Custodian (SCR pp.649-650; PDF pp.11-12).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate residual or beneficial title from statutory powers to possess, control, alienate and receive income. The conclusion is provision-specific and does not make every custodian or receiver the tax owner (based on SCR pp.648-650; PDF pp.10-12).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 12-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 12-page count match catalogue asset 1972_1_639_650; 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 ratio concerns section 9 of the repealed 1922 Act and Pakistan's 1949 evacuee-property regime; it is not a current title rule.
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.