Case Law › Supreme Court › [1962] 3 S.C.R. 137

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala And Coimbatore v. Puthiya Ponmanichintakam Wakf Manager P. P. Ayesha Bi Bi

Supreme Court [1962] 3 S.C.R. 137 14 Aug 1961 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

Supreme Court

Parties

Date of order

14 Aug 1961

Assessment year(s)

1954-55

Outcome

Allowed

Case analysis

⚙️ Auto-generated structured summary from the order — a quick research aid, not a hand-reviewed analysis. Read the original judgment below for authority.

In Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala And Coimbatore v. Puthiya Ponmanichintakam Wakf Manager P. P. Ayesha Bi Bi, the Supreme Court (1961) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 41 case law →

Original judgment (source document)

The analysis above is EaseValue's editorial summary. Below is the court's original order, reproduced from the public record as a source document — the OCR text is cleaned for readability but may retain scanning artifacts; rely on the official source for the authentic version.

▸ Show the full original order (source text)

**==> picture [74 x 42] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [285 x 87] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [418 x 84] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [425 x 293] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [432 x 83] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [422 x 82] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [425 x 111] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [425 x 83] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [418 x 56] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [274 x 51] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [258 x 50] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [420 x 84] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [433 x 444] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [432 x 53] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [425 x 117] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [435 x 145] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [425 x 259] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [426 x 147] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [432 x 559] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [410 x 52] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [431 x 472] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [428 x 143] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [435 x 83] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [417 x 174] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [409 x 84] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [427 x 295] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [420 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [430 x 351] intentionally omitted <==** 1962-3-137-145 1 നിരാകരണപതം(

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.