Bharat Beedi Works (Private) Limited and Anr. etc. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Source & verification

Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition

Identified source rendition: 10 PDF pages; SHA-256 bae705185c9a8a3d679eb2aa2c8d6352f51429d4a6caeb213aede40f41c05867. Original bytes preserved. Complete unnumbered judicial text physical pages 3–10 / SCR 608–615; editorial headnote pages 1–3 kept separate. Connected-appeal caption and illustrative Prakash Beedies facts distinguished from lead Bharat Beedi title.

• The illustrative taxpayer is Prakash Beedies, not a factual finding that Bharat Beedi itself entered the displayed agreement. The caption identifies a connected group and the body selects Civil Appeal Nos. 6092 and 6092A of 1990.; Physical page 3 prints “Prior to 15.7.1992”, while the company incorporation and the separate full agreement description are in 1972. The note uses the express agreement date without silently rewriting the inconsistent opening.; The originating-order caption prints 10 July 1986 but I.T.R.C. No. 198 of 1987. That chronological mismatch is not repaired or used to infer a different proceeding.; The connected-appeal line prints 675 and compresses years for several numbers. Preserve that source form; do not silently infer individual years or replace the number from another report.; The quoted question’s Rs 1,79,742 is kept separate from the illustrative royalties of Rs 3,16,526 and Rs 3,95,742. The report gives no reconciliation and no quantified tax result.; The procedural narrative calls the Tribunal appeals appeals against ITO orders despite first describing Commissioner revision orders under section 263. The reliable procedural result is that the Tribunal restored the ITO’s allowance.; The Court assumed firm receipts were payments to partners only for argument, and preserved section 40A(2). It did not decide every payment to relatives, a royalty valuation dispute, or a capital/revenue classification.; The 2015 later citation is checked only for recognition of brand value; the April 1993 companion supplies historical deletion context. No comprehensive later-treatment or current-law claim follows.
• These are the years expressly assigned to the illustrative Prakash Beedies facts and reference questions. The report says the connected cases have identical facts but does not separately enumerate every connected appeal’s years.
• Section 40(c) is the actual decided disallowance provision; section 40A(2) is expressly left available for distinct scrutiny, not adjudicated as a quantified disallowance. Section 40A(5)(a)(ii) appears in the explanation of Indian Engineering and the section 40(c) proviso; section 37 and capital/revenue classification are not separately decided here.
• The connected-appeal caption uses compressed year grouping. Its unyearred numbers and printed 675 are preserved without inventing separate years or silently substituting another number. The judicial body expressly identifies the illustrative Prakash Beedies appeals as Nos. 6092 and 6092A of 1990.

Statutory scope

No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or present-law certification. Apply the statutory text for the relevant assessment year.

Later treatment

Source checked 2026-10-04. Only the specifically identified later primary passages have been checked. No comprehensive subsequent-treatment search or present-law certification is claimed.

Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.

Identified source links

• reported judgment — PDF 10 pages

  SHA-256: bae705185c9a8a3d679eb2aa2c8d6352f51429d4a6caeb213aede40f41c05867

• earlier companion judgment historical statutory context — PDF 8 pages

  SHA-256: 55d967d259357afc57776c05648d928c69f224bc80328a939bbcfdfcb25c88e4

• bounded later judgment — PDF 19 pages

  SHA-256: 7219a3223ac64b8eb84bc5fbfed90179ae8d62de2357668c852510d673af34ee