COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U.P. LUCKNOW vs. THE MAHESHWARI DEVI JUTE MILLS LTD. KANPUR
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its finding that the receipts from the sale of 'loom-hours' were in the nature of capital receipts and were not taxable. The Court distinguished the present case from Commissioner of Excess Profits, Bombay City v. Sri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., stating that in the latter, a commercial asset (dyeing plant) was temporarily let out while the owner retained ownership. In contrast, 'loom-hours' could not be let out while retaining ownership; the transaction was a sale. The Court reiterated the fundamental distinction between revenue and capital receipts, noting that while sale of stock-in-trade or circulating capital results in trading receipts, sale of assets used as fixed capital results in capital receipts. The 'loom-hours' were considered an asset of the respondent, but their temporary user could not be granted. Therefore, the transaction was a sale of 'loom-hours', and when a businessman disposes of capital, unless it's part of circulating capital, the receipt is capital and not taxable income. The Court overruled its earlier decision in Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax U.P. (I.T. Misc. Case No. 177 of 1960). The appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The respondent, Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., a member of the Jute Mills Association, was allotted 'loom-hours' representing the number of hours its factory was permitted to operate. To protect members from losses due to overproduction, the Association's agreement allowed members to transfer their unused 'loom-hours' to others. During assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, the respondent transferred surplus 'loom-hours' for which it received sums of Rs. 53,460/- and Rs. 1,85,230/- respectively. The Income-tax Officer treated these receipts as revenue income. This was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court, however, ruled in favour of the assessee, leading to the present appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the receipts from the sale of 'loom-hours' amounting to Rs. 53,460/- and Rs. 1,85,230/- in assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 were revenue receipts liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act? (Question of law) The assessee contended that the receipts were in the nature of capital receipts and not taxable. The revenue argued that the right to work for the allotted hours was an asset of the assessee, and since it was part of the normal activity of the assessee's business to earn profit by utilizing its assets, the consideration received for allowing another to use that asset constituted income from business, chargeable to income tax. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Excess Profits, Bombay City v. Sri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. The Tribunal had previously held that the receipts were not capital receipts and also rejected the assessee's plea that they were casual and non-recurring receipts exempt under Section 4(3)(vii).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 4(3)(vii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
A B c D E F G B COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U.P. LUCKNOW v. THE MAHESHWARI DEVI JUTE MILLS LTD. KANPUR April 15, 1965 JK. SuBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.J J11c0Jne-ta.J..'-Salf of asset--Capit(il. receipt _or income.
To protect the interests of its members against loss resulting from over ·production, the Jute Mills Association provided that the members shall work their looms for a fixed number of hours and gave to its members facility of transferring "loom-ho.ui"S", that is, the number of hours for which the members were enhtled to work their factories. A member of the Association v.1as thereby permit- ted. in addition to the ''loom hours" allotted to that member, to work its factory for such "loom hours" as were transferred to it by another member. The respondent-assessee had transferred its surplus "loom hours'' whic.h it could not utilize during the assessment years, and received certain sums of money as consideration, \Vhich the Income- tax Officer included in the respondent's total income liable for pay- ment of income-tax. That order was confirmed by the Appellate As- sistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, but the High Court on a re- ference,
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
