HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 1613 (NT) of 1974
[1986] 3 SCR 214 ·
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963: sections 2(9), 4 and Second Schedule rule 1
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · R. S. Pathak, J. · Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
Assessment years: 1963-64 (super profits tax), 1961-62 and 1962-63 (underlying accounting debits)
01 · Facts of the case
The company debited Rs. 5,40,000 and Rs. 2,76,000 for alleged additional cane-price liabilities and showed the total Rs. 8,16,000 under current liabilities and provisions at 30 September 1962. For super profits tax AY 1963-64, the officer excluded it from capital. The Tribunal found that the tax deduction had been refused and accepted as such, no payment was made, and the entries were reversed in the next accounting year. It treated the amount as a reserve, which the High Court upheld.
Source: SCR pp. 216-217 / PDF pp. 3-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The statutory standard deduction depended on capital computed under the Second Schedule, including qualifying other reserves whose amounts had not been allowed in income-tax profit computation. Drawing on Vazir Sultan Tobacco and Metal Box, the Court distinguished a charge against profits for anticipated liabilities from an appropriation retained as capital in the business. The balance-sheet description was not conclusive: the true nature of the retained amount controlled. Here the evidence disclosed no liability and no intention or actual payment to cane growers.
Source: SCR pp. 217-218 / PDF pp. 4-5
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held that the amount was a reserve forming part of capital under rule 1 of the Second Schedule. The Revenue appeal failed and was dismissed with costs.
Source: SCR p. 218 / PDF p. 5
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on inclusion of this amount in capital for super profits tax. The Court did not allow the previously rejected income-tax deduction or decide that genuine accrued cane-price liabilities must be classified as reserves.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: examine the underlying obligation, intended use, subsequent payments or reversals and prior tax treatment rather than adopting the account caption. Keep accounting classification, income-tax deductibility and historical super-profits-tax capital computation distinct. Apply modern accounting standards and current tax provisions independently.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 216-218 / PDF pp. 3-5
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Five-page SCR scan; complete judicial reasoning begins on PDF page 3 and ends on page 5. The issue is capital computation under the Super Profits Tax Act.
- 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.
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.