{"id":135248,"date":"1962-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962"},"modified":"2018-10-26T08:48:48","modified_gmt":"2018-10-26T03:18:48","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax … vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax … vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 433, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 902<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANILAL DHANJI, BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/01\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR  433\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 902\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC2463\t (13)\n R\t    1972 SC   7\t (16)\n RF\t    1985 SC1698\t (29)\n F\t    1987 SC 107\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n     Income Tax-Trust  created in  favour of minor\nchild-No benefit  accruing to  minor in accounting\nyear-Whether income  from trust\t taxable as income\nof  assessee-Trust  by\tassessees  father-Assessee\ndirected to use income for benefit of himself, his\nwife and children-Whether income taxable as income\nof assessee-Indian  Income-tax\tAct  1922  (XI\tof\n1922) ss.  16(3) 41(1)-Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (11\nof 1882) s. 8.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In 1953  the  assessee  created  a\t trust\tin\nrespect of  a sum  of money  and provided that the\ninterest on  that amount was to be accumulated and\nadded to  the corpus and that his minor daughter C\nwas  to\t  receive  the\t income\t from  the  corpus\nincreased by  the addition  of interest\t when  she\nattained the  age of  18 years.\t In  the  relevant\naccount year, when C was still a minor, the income\nderived from the trust fund was Rs. 410 Earlier in\n1941, the assessee's father had created a trust in\nrespect of  certain shares and money directing the\ntrustees  to  pay  the\tnet  interest  and  income\nthereof to  the assessee  \"for the  maintenance of\nhimself and  his wife  and  for\t the  maintenance,\neducation and benefit of all his children till his\ndeath\". In  the relevant account year a sum of Rs.\n14,170 accrued\tas income  in  the  hands  of  the\nassessee from the said trust funds,\n903\nThe taxing authorities included both these incomes\nin the total income of the assessee.\n^\n     Held, that neither of these two incomes could\nbe included in the total income of the assessee.\n     Under s.  16(3)(b) of  the Indian\tIncome-tax\nAct,  upon   which  the\t authorities  relied,  the\nassessee could\tonly be\t taxed on  the income from\nthe trust funds for the benefit of his minor child\nif in  the year\t of account the minor child either\nreceived the  income or\t it accrued  to her or she\nhad a  beneficial interest  in the  income in  the\nrelevant year  of account.  In\tthe  present  case\nthough there  was  income  in  the  hands  of  the\ntrustees and  they were liable to pay tax thereon,\nthere was  no benefit  to the  minor child in that\nyear. As such the sum of Rs. 410 did not form part\nof the total income of the assessee.\n     The trust\tdeed of\t 1941 created  two trusts,\nthe one\t requiring the\ttrustees to pay the income\nfrom the  trust funds  to  the\tassessee  and  the\nsecond requiring  the assessee to spend the income\nfor the\t maintenance of\t himself and  his wife and\nfor the\t maintenance, education and benefit of his\nchildren. It  was not  a case  where  the  settler\nmerely expressed  a wish  or desire or hope but he\ngave as direction which created a trust in respect\nof the\tincome in  the hands  of the  assessee\tin\nfavour of  himself, his\t wife  and  children.  The\nassessee  did  not  create  the\t second\t trust\tin\nrespect of  the beneficial  interest which he held\nunder the  trust of  1941 and  s. 8  of the Indian\nTrusts Act  which forbade  the creating\t of such a\ntrust was inapplicable. The assessee was a trustee\nand not the sole beneficiary; and since the shares\nof the\tbeneficiaries were  Indeterminate  it  was\nopen to\t the Department to levy and recover tax at\nthe maximum  rate from\tthe  assessee  as  trustee\nunder  the   first  proviso  to\t s.41(1)  but  the\nDepartment was\tnot entitled to include the sum of\nRs. 14,170  in the  total income of the assesse as\nthough he was the sole beneficiary under the trust\ndeed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil  Appeal
\nNo. 323 of 196. Appeal from the judgment and order
\ndated September 25, 1958, of the Bombay High Court
\nin I.T.R. No. 3 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
     K. N.  Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     R. J.  Kolah, J.  B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur
\nand Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     1962. January  31. The  Judgment of the Court
\nwas delivered by
\n904<\/span>
\n     S. K. DAS, J.-The Commissioner of Income-tax,
\nBombay City  I, has  preferred this appeal to this
\nCourt on  a certificate\t of fitness granted by the
\nHigh Court  of Bombay  under s.\t 66A  (2)  of  the
\nIndian Income-tax Act, 1922.\n<\/p>\n
     The assessee,  who is  the respondent  before
\nus, was assessed to income-tax as an individual in
\nrespect of  his income\tfor  the  assessment  year
\n1954-55. The  taxing authorities  included in  the
\nassessee’s total  income for  the  year\t to  sums,
\nnamely, a  sum of  Rs. 410\/-  and  a  sum  of  Rs.
\n14,170\/-.  It  was  stated  that  these\t two  sums
\naccrued\t in  the  relevant  account  year  in  the
\nfollowing circumstances.  On January  12, 1953 the
\nassessee created  a trust  in respect  of a sum of
\nRs,  25,000\/-,\t the  trustees\twhereof\t were  the
\nCentral Bank  Executor & Trustee Co., the assessee
\nhimself his  wife and  brother. The  scheme of the
\ntrust-deed was\tthat the  said sum of Rs. 25,000\/-
\nwas set\t apart by the assessee and it was provided
\nthat  the   interest  on  that\tamount\tshould\tbe
\naccumulated and\t added to  the corpus  and a minor
\ndaughter of  the assessee, named Chandrika, was to
\nreceive the  income from  the corpus  increased by
\nthe addition  of interest,  when she  attained the
\nage of\t18 on February 1, 1959. She was to receive
\nthe income  during her\tlife time  and\tafter  her
\ndeath the corpus was to go to persons with whom we
\nare not\t concerned. The\t income derived\t from  the
\nsaid trust  fund amounted  to  Rs.  410\/-  in  the
\nrelevant account  year and  the taxing authorities
\nincluded this  amount in  the total  income of the
\nassessee, purporting  to  act  under  s.  16(3)(b)
\nand\/or s.  16(3)(a)(iv) of  the Income-tax Act. As
\nregards the  second sum of Rs. 14,170\/- it appears
\nthat on\t December 1,  1941, the\t assessee’s father
\nhad created  a trust in respect of some shares and
\na cash\tsum of Rs. 30,000\/- for the benefit of his
\nfour sons  including the  assessee.  The  trustees
\nwere the  Central Bank\tExecutor and  Trustee  Co.
\nLtd., the  assessee himself  and one other person.
\nThe said  trustees were\t to hold  the trust  funds
\nupon trust to
\n905<\/span>
\npay the\t net interest  and income  thereof to  the
\nassessee “for  the maintenance\tof himself and his
\nwife  and   for\t the  maintenance,  education  and
\nbenefit of  all his  children till his death”. The
\nsum of\tRs. 14,170\/-.  it was  stated, accrued\tas
\nincome\tin  the\t hands\tof  the\t assessee  in  the
\nrelevant account  year from  the said trust funds.
\nThe view of the taxing authorities and the Income-
\ntax  Appellate\t Tribunal  was\t that  under   the
\naforesaid provision of the trust deed the assessee
\nwas the\t sole beneficiary  and that the amount was
\nreceived by him for his own benefit and he was not
\naccountable to\tany one\t in respect  of the amount
\nand, therefore,\t this  amount  was  liable  to\tbe
\nincluded in his total income.\n<\/p>\n
     On behalf\tof the assessee the contention was
\nthat the sum of Rs. 410\/- aforesaid was not liable
\nto be included in the total income of the assessee
\ninasmuch as  Chandrika, the  minor daughter of the
\nassessee, had  no right\t to  the  income  nor  any
\nbeneficial interest  therein in\t the relevant year
\nof account  under the provisions of the trust deed
\nand, therefore,\t neither s.  16(2)(a)(iv)  nor\ts.
\n16(3)(b) applied to the case. As to the sum of Rs.
\n14,170\/- the  case of  the assessee  was  that\tit
\nshould not  be included in his total income as the
\nsole beneficiary,  because the beneficiaries under
\nthe trust  settlement were  not only  the assessee
\nbut  his   wife\t and  children\tas  well.  It  was
\ncontended that the assessee received the amount in
\ntrust for himself and his wife and children and it
\nwas open  to the  Department to\t proceed under the
\nfirst proviso  to s.  41 (1) of the Income-tax Act
\nand recover  tax on  a separate assessment made on
\nthe assessee  as a  trustee in respect of the said
\nsum at\tthe maximum  rate, because  the individual
\nshares of  the beneficiaries  on whose\tbehalf the
\nmoney was  receivable were  indeterminate and  not
\nknown.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Income-tax  Appellate\t Tribunal,  on\tan
\nappeal by  the\tassessee,  did\tnot  accept  these
\ncontentions. The  Tribunal was then moved to state
\na
\n906<\/span>
\ncase to\t the High  Court on  two questions  of law
\nthose questions were:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “1. Whether  the sum\tof  Rs.\t 410\/-\tis
\n     properly includible  in the  assessee’s total
\n     income  either   in   accordance\twith   the
\n     provisions of section 16(3)(b) and\/or section
\n     16(3)(a)(iv) of  the Indian  Income-tax  Act,
\n     1922?<\/p>\n
\t  2. Whether  the sum  of Rs.  14,170\/- is
\n     properly includible  in the  total income\tof
\n     the assessee  as the sole beneficiary thereof
\n     under the\ttrust settlement made on 1-12-1941
\n     by Dhanji Devsi?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On being  satisfied that  these questions  of  law
\narose out of the order of the Tribunal dated April
\n24, 1957,  the Tribunal\t stated a  case\t under\ts.
\n66(1)  of  the\tIncome-tax  Act.  The  High  Court
\nanswered both  the  questions  in  favour  of  the
\nassessee by its judgment and order dated September
\n25, 1958.  There after\tthe High  Court granted\t a
\ncertificate of\tfitness under  s.  66A(2)  of  the
\nIncome-tax Act and, as we have already stated, the
\npresent appeal\thas been  brought to this Court on
\nthe strength of that certificate.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t proceed   now\tto  deal  with\tthe  first
\nquestion which\trelates to  the sum  of Rs. 410\/-.
\nThe question  is whether  this\tsum  was  properly
\nincludible in  the assessee’s  total income  under
\nthe provisions\tof s.  16(3)(b) of  the Income-tax
\nAct, because  Mr. Rajagopal  Sastri appearing  for
\nthe appellant  has not pressed the claim which was
\nmade  before   the  Tribunal   on  behalf  of  the
\nDepartment   under    the   provisions\t  of\ts.
\n16(3)(a)(iv). Before we go to the provisions of s.
\n16(3)(b) it  is advisable  to set out the material
\nportions of  cls. 3  and 4  of the  trust-deed\tof
\nJanuary 12,  1953. Those  clauses  were\t in  these
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3. The  Trustees shall  hold and  stand
\n     possessed\tof   the  trust\t  fund\t and   the
\n     investments for  the time\tbeing representing
\n     the
\n907<\/span>
\n     same  and\t receive  the\tincome,\t  divided,
\n     interest and  rents thereof  and  invest  the
\n     same  and\tthe  resulting\tincome,\t dividend,
\n     interest  and   rents  thereof   so   as\tto
\n     accumulate at compound interest to the intent
\n     that such accumulations shall be added to the
\n     principal\ttrust  fund  until  the\t settler’s
\n     daughter Chandrika\t shall attain  the age\tof
\n     eighteen years  which age\tshe will attain on
\n     the  1st\tFebruary  1959\t and   after   the
\n     expiration of  the\t above\tnamed  period  the
\n     Trustees shall  deal with\tand dispose of the
\n     trust fund as hereinafter stated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  4. The  Trustees shall  hold\tand  stand
\n     possessed\tof   the  trust\t  fund\t and   the
\n     accumulations thereof  upon trust\tto pay the
\n     net  interest   and  income   thereof   after
\n     deducting all  out\t goings\t and  charges  for
\n     collection to the said Chandrika for her life
\n     for her maintenance…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  clear from  these clauses  that during  the
\nminority of  Chandrika, the  income from the trust
\nfunds was to be accumulated and added to the trust
\nfunds and  after the attained majority on February
\n1, 1959,  she was  to get only the income from the
\nenlarged trust funds. Now, in the relevant year of
\naccount Chandrika  was still a minor and under the
\nterms of  the trust  deed she  had no right to the
\ntrust income  nor any beneficial interest therein;
\nshe could  neither receive  nor enjoy  the income.
\nShe did not derive any benefit whatsoever from the
\ntrust funds during her minority and even after she
\nattained majority,  she did  not have any right to
\nthe trust  income which\t arose during her minority
\nand her only right was to enjoy the income arising
\nfrom the enlarged trust funds, i. e., the original
\ntrust funds  and the accumulations of trust income
\nduring her  minority. Therefore,  the sum  of  Rs.
\n410\/-was not  the income of Chandrika, but was the
\nincome\tof   the  trustees   and  the  income  was
\nimpressed with\ta trust, namely, that it should be
\nadded to
\n908<\/span>
\nthe  trust   corpus.  The  question  is,  does\ts.
\n16(3)(b) apply to such a case ?\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  presently read s. 16(3), but before
\nwe do so it is necessary to refer to the scheme of
\ns. 16  of the  Income-tax Act.\tThe section  deals
\nwith the computation of total income as defined in
\ns. 2(15)  of the  Act, and provides that what sums
\nare to\tbe included or excluded in determining the
\ntotal income. The definition of total income in s.
\n2(15) involves\ttwo elements-(a)  the income  must
\ncomprise the  total amount  of income, profits and
\ngains referred\tto in  s. 4(1), and (b) it must be
\ncomputed in  the manner\t laid down in the Act. The
\nexemption granted  under the  Act is of two kinds;
\ncertain classes\t of income  are exempted  from tax
\nand also  excluded from\t the computation  of total
\nincome, while  certain\tother  classes\tof  income
\nexempted from  tax  are\t to  be\t included  in  the
\nassessee’s total income. Now cl. (a) of sub-s. (i)
\nof s. 16 provides the sums exempted from tax under
\ncertain provisions  of the  Act should be included
\nin the\tassessee’s total  income. Clause  (b) lays
\ndown the  mode of  computing a\tpartner’s share in
\nthe profit  or loss  of the  firm. Under  cl.  (c)
\nincome which arises to any person by virtue of any
\nsettlement or  disposition from\t assets\t remaining
\nthe property  of the  settler or  disponer etc. is
\ntaxed as his income. The object of the legislation
\nis clearly  designed to\t overtake and circumvent a
\ntendency  on   the  part   of  the  tax-payers\tto
\nendeavour to  avoid or\treduce\ttax  liability\tby
\nmeans of  settlements. Sub-section  (2) deals with
\ngrossing up  of dividend etc. Then we come to sub-
\ns.  (3).  This\tsub-section  aims  at  foiling\tan
\nindividual’s  attempt\tto  avoid  or  reduce  the
\nincidence of tax by transferring his assets to his
\nwife or\t minor child  or admitting  his wife  as a
\npartner\t or  admitting\this  minor  child  to  the
\nbenefits of  a partnership in a firm in which such
\nindividual is  a partner.  The sub-section creates
\nan artificial
\n909<\/span>
\nliability to  tax and  must be strictly construed.
\nNow, let us read the sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “16. (3)  In computing  the total income
\n     of\t any   individual  for\t the  purpose\tof
\n     assessment there shall be included:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) so much of the income of a wife
\n\t  or minor  child of  such  individual\tas
\n\t  arises directly or indirectly:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i)   from the  membership  of  the
\n\t\t    wife in  a firm  of which  her
\n\t\t    husband is a partner;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii)  from  the\tadmission  of  the
\n\t\t    minor  to\tthe  benefits\tof
\n\t\t    partnership in a firm of which
\n\t\t    such individual is a partner;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iii)from    assets     transferred
\n\t\t    directly or\t indirectly to the
\n\t\t    wife by  the husband otherwise
\n\t\t    than       for\t  adequate
\n\t\t    consideration or in connection
\n\t\t    with  an   agreement  to  live
\n\t\t    apart; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iv)   from    assets   transferred
\n\t\t    directly or\t indirectly to the
\n\t\t    minor  child,   not\t being\t a
\n\t\t    married   daughter\t by   such
\n\t\t    individual otherwise  than for
\n\t\t    adequate consideration; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) so  much of\tthe income  of any
\n\t  person  or  association  of  persons\tas
\n\t  arises from assets transferred otherwise
\n\t  than for  adequate consideration  to the
\n\t  person or association by such individual
\n\t  for the  benefit of  his wife or a minor
\n\t  child or both.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     The argument  on behalf  of the  appellant is
\nthat the conditions laid down in cl. (b) of sub-s.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(3) of s. 16 are fulfilled in the present case and
\ntherefore the  Department was  intitled to include
\nin the
\n910<\/span>
\ntotal income of the assessee so much of the income
\nin the\thands of  the trustees\tas arose  from the
\nassets transferred by the assessee for the benefit
\nof his\tminor child.  It is  pointed out  that the
\nconditions laid\t down in  cl.(b)are-(1) that there
\nmust be\t income in  the hands  of  any\tperson\tor
\nassociation of\tpersons (trustees  in the  present
\ncases;) (2)  the income\t must  arise  from  assets
\ntransferred   otherwise\t   than\t   for\t  adequate
\nconsideration  to   the\t trustees;   and  (3)  the
\ntransfer must  be for  the benefit  of\tthe  minor
\nchild. It  is argued  that when the conditions are
\nfulfilled and  the only\t exceptional case, namely,
\nwhere the  transfer is\tfor adequate consideration
\nis out\tof the\tway, cl.  (b) must  apply and  the
\nDepartment is  entitled to  include the\t income in
\nthe hands  of the  trustees in computing the total
\nincome of  the individual  assessee who\t made  the
\ntransfer.\n<\/p>\n
     At first  sight the  argument appears  to\tbe
\nattractive and\tsupported by the words used in the
\nclause. On a closer scrutiny, however; it seems to
\nus that cl. (b) must be read in the context of the
\nscheme of  16 and  the two  clauses (a) and (b) of
\nsub-s. (3)  thereof must be read together. So read
\nthe only  reasonable interpretation  appears to be
\nthe one\t which the  High Court\taccepted,  namely,
\nthat the  scheme of  the section  requires that an
\nassessee can  only be  taxed on\t the income from a
\ntrust fund  for the  benefit of\t his minor  child,
\nprovided that  in the  year of\taccount the  minor
\nchild derives  some benefit  under the\ttrust deed
\neither he  receives  the  income,  or  the  income
\naccrues to him, or he has a beneficial interest in
\nthe income in the relevant year of account. But if
\nno income accrues, or no benefit derived and there
\nis no  income at all (so far as the minor child is
\nconcerned), then  it is\t not consistent\t with  the
\nscheme of  s. 16  that the income or benefit which
\nis non-existent\t so far\t as  the  minor\t child\tis
\nconcerned, will\t be included  in the income of his
\nfather. Take, for example, a case where the assets
\n911<\/span>
\nwere  transferred   otherwise  than  for  adequate
\nconsideration for  the benefit\tof a  minor child,
\nbut the\t child has  attained majority  before  the
\nrelevant year  of account. After the child attains
\nmajority the  sub-section would cease to apply and
\nthe income from assets transferred for the benefit
\nof the\tchild would  no longer\tbe taxable  in the
\nparent’s hands.\t The reason  must be  that in  the
\nrelevant year  of account  there is  no benefit to
\nthe minor  child by  the transfer, even though the
\ntransfer was  originally made  for the\tbenefit of
\nthe child.  The same  principle may be illustrated
\nby another  example which  has been  dealt with by
\nthe High  Court.  Take\ta  case\t where\tthere  are
\nintermediate beneficiaries  before the\tminor gets
\nthe benefit  under the\ttrust deed. In such a case
\nthe learned  Advocate for  the Department conceded
\nin the High Court that cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s.
\n16 would  not be  attracted till the minor derived
\nbenefit under the trust deed. Mr. Rajagopal Sastri
\ndid not\t make any  such concession  before us; but
\nseems  to   us\tthat   principle  underlying   the
\nillustration  is   incontestable.  If\tthe  minor
\nderives\t no   benefit  in  the\trelevant  year\tof
\naccount, it  can hardly be said that for that year
\nthe transfer  was for  the benefit  of\tthe  minor
\nchild. Section\t4, the\tcharging section,  of  the
\nIncome-taxs Act\t makes it clear that what is taxed
\nis the\ttotal income of the relevant account year,
\nand total  income, according  to s. 2 (15), is the
\nincome, profits\t and gains  referred to\t in sub-s.
\n(1) of\ts. 4  and computed in the manner laid down
\nin the Act. In other words, the tax is levied on a
\nyearly basis.  It is true that in the present case
\nthere was  income in the hands of the trustees and
\nthe trustees were liable to pay tax thereon. That,
\nhowever,  is  not  the\tquestion  before  us.  The
\nquestion before\t us is\twhether such income in the
\nhands of  the trustees\tcould be  included in  the
\ntotal income of the assessee under cl. (b) of sub-
\ns.(3) of s. 16. In our opinion, when
\n912<\/span>
\ncl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s. 16 talks of benefit of
\nthe minor  child it refers to benefit which arises
\nor accrues to the minor in the year of account. If
\nthere be  no such  benefit, the\t income cannot\tbe
\nincluded in the total income of the individual who
\nmade the  transfer. There  is a third type of case
\nwhich also  illustrate the same principle. If only
\na portion  of the  income of the trust is reserved
\nfor the\t minor child, cl, (b) would apply and that
\nportion of  the income\twhich is set apart for the
\nbenefit for  the child\twould be  taxable  in  the
\nhands of the settler. All these illustrations only
\nestablish the  principle that the minor child must
\nderive\tsome  benefit  in  the\trelevant  year\tof
\naccount before cl. (b) would apply.\n<\/p>\n
     Furthermore, we  are also\tof the\tview  that
\ncls. (a)  and (b)  of the sub-section must be read
\ntogether, Clause  (a) begins  with the\texpression
\n“so much of the income of a wife or minor child of
\nsuch individual as arises directly or indirectly”,
\nand this  is followed  by the  four  circumstances
\nnumbered (i),  (ii), (iii)  and (iv).  There is no
\ndoubt that  so far  as cl. (a) is concerned, there
\nmust be\t income of  the wife  or minor\tchild. Mr.
\nRajagopal  Sastri   has\t not  disputed\tthis.  The
\nobvious intention  of the  Legislature in enacting
\ncl. (b)\t was to see that the provisions of cl. (a)
\nwere not defeated by the assessee creating a trust
\nand in order to deal with that mischief it enacted
\ncl. (b). Instead of the expression “so much of the
\nincome of  a wife  or minor  child” the expression
\nused in\t cl. (b)  is “so much of the income of any
\nperson or association of persons etc.”. Obviously,
\nwhen a\ttrust is  created the  income is income in
\nthe hands  of the  trustees.  But  the\tunderlying
\nprinciple in  the two  cls. (a) and (b) appears to
\nbe the\tsame, namely,  there must be income of the
\nwife or minor child under cl.(a) and there must be
\nsome benefit derived by the wife or minor child in
\nthe  year   of\taccount\t  under\t cl.(b).  This\tis
\nconsistent with the scheme of s. 16
\n913<\/span>
\nand particularly  sub-s.  (3)  thereof.\t which\tis
\nintended to  foil an individual’s attempt to avoid
\nor reduce the incidence of tax by transferring his
\nassets to  his wife  or\t minor\tchild  etc.  When,
\nhowever, the  minor child derives no benefit under
\nthe trust  deed in  the year of account, it is not
\nconsistent with\t the scheme  of s.  16 to say that
\neven though  there is  no accrual of and income or
\nbenefit in  the year  of account  in favour of the
\nminor child,  yet the  income must  be included in
\nthe total income of the individual concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  has been drawn to s. 64 of the
\nIncome-tax Act,\t 1961 (43  of 1961).  That section
\ncorresponds to\ts. 16  of the Income-tax Act, 1922
\nand cl.\t (v) of\t s. 64 has made the position clear
\nby using  the expression  ‘immediate  or  deferred
\nbenefit” so that even a benefit which is postponed
\nand does not arise in the year of account will not
\nentitle the  Department to  include the\t income in
\nthe hands  of the  trustees in the total income of
\nthe settler.  We do  not, however,  think that the
\nAct of 1961 can be taken as declaratory of the law
\nwhich excited  previously; nor\tcan s  64  (v)\tbe
\ntaken as  determinative\t of  the  true\tscope  and
\neffect of  cl. (b)  of sub-s.  (3) of  s. 16.  The
\nLegislature may\t have thought fit in its wisdom to
\nwiden the  scope of  the law that existed previous
\nto it  so as to take in deferred benefits as well.
\nWe think  that we must interpret cl. (b) of sub-s.
\n(3) of\tthe context of the section as it occurs in
\nthe Income-tax Act of 1922.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t have\tbeen  referred\t to  two   English
\ndecisions Dale\tv.  Mitcalfe  (1)  and\tMauray\tv.
\nCommissioners of  Inland Revenue  (2). One  of the
\ndecision Dale  v. Mitcalfe (1) related to s. 25 of
\nthe English Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. V. C.\n<\/p>\n
40) and\t the other  related to\ts. 20(1)(c) of the
\nEnglish Finance Act 1922 (12 and 13 Geo V. C. 17).
\nThose  provisions   were  differently  worded  and
\nappear in a different
\n914<\/span>
\ncontext and  decisions of the English Courts given
\non provisions  differently worded and appearing in
\na different  context  are  not,\t in  our  opinion,
\nhelpful in  determining the  true scope and effect
\nof cl.\t(b) sub-s.  (3) of s. 16 of the Income-tax
\nAct, 1922.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  therefore, come  to  the\tconclusion
\nthat on\t a true\t construction of cl. (b) of sub-s.
\n(3) of\ts. (3),\t the view  expressed by\t the  High
\nCourt was correct and the sum of Rs. 410\/- did not
\nform part of the total income of the assessee. The
\nHigh Court  correctly answered\tthe first question
\nreferred to it.\n<\/p>\n
     We now  turn  to  the  second  question.  The
\nrelevant clause\t of the\t trust deed of December 1,
\n1941 is cl. 7 which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\ttrustees   shall  hold\tand  stand
\n     possessed of  the Trust Fund mentioned in the
\n     second Schedule  hereto and the accumulations
\n     thereof referred  to in clause 3 thereof upon
\n     Trust to  pay the\tnet  interest  and  income
\n     thereof to\t the Settler’s son MANILAL for the
\n     maintenance of  himself, his wife and for the
\n     maintenance, education and benefit of all his
\n     children till his death.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The question  before us is whether under this
\nclause the  income received  by\t the  assessee\tis
\nimpressed with\ta trust\t in favour of himself, his
\nwife and  children to  whom he is accountable as a
\ntrustee for  the amount\t received. In other words,
\nthe question is whether the trust deed of December
\n1, 1941, created two trusts, the one requiring the
\ntrustees to  pay the  income from the trusts funds
\nto the\tassessee  and  the  second  requiring  the
\nassessee to  spend the\tincome for the maintenance
\nof himself  and his  wife and for the maintenance,
\neducation and  benefit of  his children.  In cases
\nwhere property\tis given  to  a\t parent\t or  other
\nperson standing\t or regarded  as in loco parentis,
\nwith a direction
\n915<\/span>
\ntouching the  maintenance  of  the  children,  the
\nquestion often arises whether the settler intended
\nto impose  a trust by the direction or whether the
\ndirection was  only the\t motive of  the gift.  The
\nline between the two classes of cases has not been
\ndrawn always  very firmly.  It is,  however, clear
\nthat in\t construing provisions\tof this\t kind  the
\nCourt will  not enforce\t or treat  as obligatory a
\nmere wish  or desire  or hope  on the  part of the
\nsettler that the donee of the fund should or would
\nought to  or is\t expected  to  apply  it  for  the
\nbenefit of  other persons;  on the other hand, the
\nCourt does  regard as  binding and  obligatory and
\ndoes enforce  a direction  or trust  in favour\tof
\nthird parties  if such a binding obligation can be
\nclearly ascertained  from the  document. Instances
\nof cases  where no  trust is  created and of cases
\nwhere trust  is created\t and detailed  at pages 85
\nand 86 of Lewin on Trusts (15th Edition).\n<\/p>\n
     We are unable to hold that in the case before
\nus cl. 7 of the trust deed merely expressed a wish
\nor desire  or hope  on the part of the settler. We
\nare in\tagreement with\tthe High  Court\t that  the
\ndirection contained  in cl.  7 created\ta trust in
\nfavour of the assessee, his wife and children. The
\nexpression “for the maintenance of himself and his
\nwife  and   for\t the  maintenance,  education  and
\nbenefit of  all his children” is not indicative of
\na mere\tdesire or  hope. It  imposes a binding and
\nobligatory trust. In re. Booth, Booth v. Booth (1)
\na testator  gave the  residue of his estate to his
\nexecutors, on  trust, to pay to his wife or permit
\nher to\treceive the  annual income  thereof during
\nher life,  “for her  use and  benefit and  for the
\nmaintenance and\t education of my children”. It was
\nheld that  the wife  took the  income subject to a
\ntrust for the maintenance and education of the
\n916<\/span>
\nchildren. A  similar view  was expressed in Raikes
\nv. Ward (1) and Woods v. Woods (2)
\n     On behalf\tof the appellant our attention was
\ndrawn to  s. 8\tof the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (II
\nof 1882) which states that the subject matter of a
\ntrust  must   be  property   transferable  to  the
\nbeneficiary and\t it must  not be merely beneficial
\ninterest under a subsisting trust. It is contended
\nthat the  assessee held\t a beneficial  interest in
\nthe income  from the  trust funds  under the trust
\ndeed of\t December  1,  1941,  and  in  respect\tof
\nbeneficial interest  another trust  could  not\tbe
\ncreated\t in   favour  of  himself,  his\t wife  and
\nchildren. We  think that this argument proceeds on
\na misconception.  The assessee\tdid not\t create\t a
\nsecond trust in respect of the beneficial interest
\nwhich he  held under the trust deed of December 1,
\n1914. The  assessee father  created two\t trusts by
\nthat trust deed, one requiring the trustees to pay
\nthe trust  income to  the assessee  and the  other
\nrequiring the assessee, who was himself a trustee,
\nto spend the income for the maintenance, education
\nand benefit  of his  children. It  is not disputed
\nthat by\t a single document more than one trust may
\nbe created. It is not, therefore, true to say that
\nthe subject  matter of\tthe trust  in the  present
\ncase was  merely a  beneficial\tinterest  under\t a
\nsubsisting trust.\n<\/p>\n
     Under s. 41 of the Income-tax Act it was open
\nto the\tDepartment either  to tax; the trustees of
\nthe trust deed or to tax those on whose behalf the
\ntrustees  had\treceived  the\tamount.\t The  true
\nposition of  the assessee in this case was that he
\nwas a  trustee and  not the sole beneficiary under
\nthe trust  deed. He  held the  income on trust for
\nhimself, his  wife and his children. The shares of
\nthe beneficiaries were indeterminate and therefore
\nunder the first proviso to s. 41(1) of the
\n917<\/span>
\nIncome-tax Act,\t it was\t open to the Department to
\nlevy and  recover the tax at the maximum rate from
\nthe  assessee;\t but  that  did\t not  entitle  the
\nDepartment to  include the  sum of Rs. 14,170\/- in
\nthe total  income of the assessee as though he was
\nthe sole  beneficiary under  the trust\tdeed,  Mr.
\nRajagopal Sastri  made it clear that the intention
\nof the\tDepartment was\tto include  the sum in the
\ntotal income  of the assessee in order to levy and
\ncharge super-tax  on him.  This, we  do not think,
\nthe Department\twas entitled  to do. In respect of
\nthe  sum  of  Rs.  14,170\/-  the  assessee  was\t a
\ntrustee, within\t the  meaning  of  s.  41  of  the
\nIncome-tax Act,\t appointed under  a trust declared
\nby a  duly executed  instrument in  writing and as
\nsuch trustee  he had the right to contend that his
\nassessment in respect of the money received by him
\nnot as\ta beneficiary  but as a trustee could only
\nbe made\t under the  first proviso to s. 41 (1). We
\nhave, therefore,  come to  the conclusion  that on
\nthe second  question also  the answer given by the
\nHigh Court was correct.\n<\/p>\n
     The result,  therefore, is\t that  the  appeal
\nfails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
918<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Commissioner Of Income-Tax … vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 433, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 902 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: MANILAL DHANJI, BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/01\/1962 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. HIDAYATULLAH, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-26T03:18:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax … vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T03:18:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962\"},\"wordCount\":4540,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T03:18:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax … vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-26T03:18:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax … vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962","datePublished":"1962-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T03:18:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962"},"wordCount":4540,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962","name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T03:18:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-manilal-dhanji-bombay-on-31-january-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax … vs Manilal Dhanji, Bombay on 31 January, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}