Judgments mentioning ACT in the Judgments

Apparently what you have quoted is the Headnote/Keywords to a judgment. They don't form a part of the judgment itself and are added subsequently by the person who edits and reports the judgment.

These are added for quick reference so that by looking at the Keywords, the reader may get an idea if the judgment is useful for his purposes.

From the quoted keywords, its appears that the constitutional validity of an Act which has the effect of amending the Income Tax Act, 1922. On the face of it, if two Headnotes/Keywords refer to the same provision of law, they may be related. Keep in mind though that Headnotes may be deceptive and its always best practice to read the entire judgment before any reliance is placed on  the same.

Wikipedia defines headnote as a brief summary of a particular point of law that is added to the text of a court decision to aid readers in interpreting the highlights of an opinion. As the term implies, they appear at the beginning of the published opinion.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headnote)

Hello Atul,

Thanks for your quick response.

The data  I 've copied in my previous post is written under   subheading "ACT" , not under "Headnote". The same judgment can be found at :--

https://www.commonlii.org/in/cases/INSC/1962/5.html

As you can see, the Headnote is also available in the judgment but it's after "ACT".

Could you please let me know your view now ?

thanks in advance

~Sushanta

Sushanta, even this ACT reference is an editorial note to assist the reader. As you may have noticed, publications also have editorial notes on cases referred to in the judgment, cases differed, cases affirmed, approved etc. They are all serve to give a quick idea of the relevance of the case for the reader.

You might find this judgment interesting

Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr

https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1062099/