HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal II, Calcutta v. Coal Shipment (P) Ltd.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1494-1498 of 1971
[1972] 1 SCR 1089 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 10(2)(xv)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by H. R. Khanna, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J. · H. R. Khanna, J.
Assessment years: 1951-52 to 1955-56
01 · Facts of the case
Under an oral, at-will arrangement, H. V. Low assisted the assessee in procuring coal and refrained from exporting coal to Burma. Payments were tied to actual shipments, and the Tribunal found no monopoly or enduring advantage (SCR pp.1090-1093; PDF pp.2-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Capital/revenue classification is fact-sensitive. An at-will competition restraint was too transitory to be enduring, and shipment-linked payments formed part of trading operations rather than instalments for a fixed asset or monopoly. A fixed-term monopoly-licence case was distinguished (SCR pp.1094-1100; PDF pp.6-12).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
All five Revenue appeals were dismissed with one set of costs (SCR p.1100; PDF p.12).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on final merits, limited to the at-will and operational features found (SCR pp.1099-1100; PDF pp.11-12).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: record duration, termination rights, payment basis, turnover linkage and whether a lasting asset or structural right is obtained. Periodic payment alone does not decide character (based on SCR pp.1097-1100; PDF pp.9-12).
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_1089_1100; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated 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
This fact-specific ruling under section 10(2)(xv) of the repealed 1922 Act is not present-law clearance for non-compete payments.
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.