HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat v. Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta
Civil Appeal No. 1423 (NT) of 1973
[1984] 1 SCR 480 ·
Wealth-tax Act, 1957: sections 2(m)(iii) and 35 · Income-tax Act, 1961: section 154
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · R. S. Pathak, J. · E. S. Venkataramiah, J.
Assessment years: 1964-65 (wealth-tax assessment), Earlier tax liabilities as detailed in judgment
01 · Facts of the case
In the wealth-tax assessment for AY 1964-65 the assessee claimed deduction of tax liabilities for several years. The appellate authority accepted entitlement subject to arithmetical verification. Some income-tax and wealth-tax liabilities were quantified by rectification orders made after the original wealth-tax assessment of 23 November 1964; additional claims were permitted in the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s timing objections but directed separate examination under section 2(m)(iii). The High Court answered both referred questions for the assessee.
Source: SCR pp. 481-483 / PDF pp. 2-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court followed its same-day Vadilal Lallubhai decision on later quantification of existing tax debts. An assessment appeal continues the assessment proceeding, so subsequent assessments or rectifications could be considered during it. Where the appellate authority permitted the claim, absence of that claim from the original assessment did not bar consideration. Rectification quantified the true liability already crystallised at the relevant historical statutory point; it was treated like original assessment for this deduction issue.
Source: SCR pp. 483-484 / PDF pp. 4-5
03 · Judicial decision
Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Revenue appeal was dismissed. Because the assessee was absent, no order as to costs was made. The judgment does not rescind the separately recorded inquiry into section 2(m)(iii) exclusions.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on consideration and quantification of tax-debt deductions notwithstanding later assessment or rectification. That legal success is distinct from establishing the precise arithmetic or clearing each liability against statutory exclusions.
Source: SCR pp. 482-484 / PDF pp. 3-5
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: keep a liability-wise schedule identifying the crystallisation date, original claim, later assessment or rectification and appellate admission. Reconcile the latest quantified liability and separately test exclusion clauses. Do not treat an appellate entitlement ruling as a final numerical allowance where verification remains necessary.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 482-484 / PDF pp. 3-5
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Five-page SCR scan; judgment begins on PDF page 2. Date and appeal year visually verified because text extraction is unclear. The Tribunal’s section 2(m)(iii) direction is part of the recorded procedural history.
- Full judicial text and operative relief read; original SCR source bytes preserved.
- The source is a public mirror of an original SCR scan, not a certified court copy. Page references distinguish judicial reasoning from editorial headnotes.
Statutory scope
Apply the historical statutory text governing the decision. Current statutory applicability and Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence have not been verified.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Full historical judgment checked. Comprehensive subsequent judicial 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.
Related reviewed notes
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.