HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 1119 (NT) of 1975
[1989] 1 SCR 638 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: section 256 (reference jurisdiction) · Constitution: Article 136
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · M. H. Kania, J. · L. M. Sharma, J.
Assessment years: 1959-60
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1959-60 the assessee claimed losses on sales of Bharat Starch & Chemicals and Greaves Cotton shares to an allied group company. The Income-tax Officer questioned genuineness and the commercial purpose; the appellate authority upheld disallowance on capital/investment grounds. The Tribunal instead found business transactions and allowable trading losses after considering earlier treatment as a share dealer, prices, holding circumstances and group relationships. The High Court declined to direct reference of the additional questions sought by the Revenue; only two proposed questions were pressed before the Supreme Court.
Source: SCR pp. 641-644 / PDF pp. 4-7
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court treated the Tribunal as the final fact-finding body. Whether a loss is trading or capital, and genuine or bogus, primarily depends on facts; interference requires irrelevant material, omission of relevant material, or a conclusion no reasonable person could reach. Balance-sheet classification is relevant but not conclusive. Common group control may invite scrutiny without itself proving a sham. Read fairly as a whole, the Tribunal's judgment considered the relevant circumstances; it need not recite a formula stating that it considered their cumulative effect.
Source: SCR pp. 643-646 / PDF pp. 6-9
03 · Judicial decision
The Revenue's appeal against refusal to require the additional references failed and was dismissed with costs. The Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal's factual conclusions or to remand merely because its judgment did not expressly use the words cumulative effect or totality of circumstances.
Source: SCR pp. 645-646 / PDF pp. 8-9
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee in the reference dispute: the Tribunal's allowance of the losses remained undisturbed. The result rested on this evidentiary record and absence of demonstrated perversity, not an unconditional rule validating group-company transfers.
Source: SCR pp. 645-646 / PDF pp. 8-9
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: preserve contemporaneous evidence of acquisition purpose, actual transaction prices, holding period, accounts and earlier tax treatment. When challenging fact findings, identify the particular ignored evidence, irrelevant consideration or irrational inference. Mere disagreement with the conclusion, or the absence of stock phrases in the Tribunal's order, is insufficient.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 643-646 / PDF pp. 6-9
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Nine-page SCR scan, pp. 638-646; judgment starts on PDF page 3 and continues through the disposal on page 9. Distinct from the 1996 undercharges decision involving Karam Chand Thapar.
- Full source read and operative relief checked; source bytes match the SHA-256 in the supplied consolidated index.
- Page references are used because the judgment body in this SCR scan has no numbered paragraphs. The source is a public mirror of an original SCR scan, not a certified court copy.
Statutory scope
Apply the historical statutory provisions and assessment years stated in this note. Present statutory applicability and any Income-tax Act, 2025 crosswalk have not been determined.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-09. Full historical judgment checked. Comprehensive subsequent 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.