{"id":217935,"date":"1950-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1950-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950"},"modified":"2016-05-11T14:03:53","modified_gmt":"2016-05-11T08:33:53","slug":"executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950","title":{"rendered":"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 21 December, 1950"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 21 December, 1950<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 111, \t\t 1950 SCR 969<\/div>\n
Author: H J Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nEXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF J.K. DUBASH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAYCITY.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/12\/1950\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR  111\t\t  1950 SCR  969\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1958 SC 269\t (10)\n RF\t    1986 SC 376\t (21)\n\n\nACT:\n   Indian  Income-tax  Act  (XI of 1922), s.  25  Death\t of\nperson carrying on business--Executors carrying on  business\nas going concern for selling it under terms of will--Whether\n\"succeed in such capacity \"to testator--Date of succession.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n   A person who carried on a business on which tax had been\nlevied\tunder the Income-tax Act of 1918 died on the 9th  of\nApril,\t1942,  leaving\ta will by which\t he  authorised\t his\nexecutors to carry    on his business as a going concern, as\nif  they were absolute owners but without being\t responsible\nfor  loss,  for a period not exceedin\t  12  months  during\nwhich if any of his nephews wanted to purchase the business,\nthey might sell it to him or them. The business was sold  to\none  of the nephews on the let January, 1993.  The  question\nbeing  whether for the purposes of s. 25 (4) of the  Income-\ntax  Act  of 1922 is amended in 1939 the succession  to\t the\nbusiness\t    took place on the 9th April, 1942,\twhen\nthe  testator  died or on the 1st January,  1943,  when\t the\nbusiness was sold:\n    Held,  affirming the decision of the Bombay High  Court,\nthat inasmuch as the business got vested in the executors on\nthe death    of thetestator and the executors carried on the\nbusiness within the meaning of es. 3 and 10 of the Act,\t and\nas such became personally liable as assessees and there\t was\nthus a change in the assessee, a succession to the  testator\n\"in  such capacity\" took place on the date of the  death  of\nthe  assessee,\teven  though the executors  carried  on\t the\nbusiness as a going concern under the terms of the will\t and\nthe  business was also being carried on not lot the  benefit\nof  the executors but for the benefit of the estate  of\t the\ntestator.\n    Per\t PATANJALI SASTRI J.--The expression  \"succeeded  by\nanother\t person\" in s. 26 (2) and s. 25 (4) of the  Act\t in-\ncludes\tnot  only cases of succession inter vivos  but\talso\ncases of succession on death.\n    While  it is true that a transfer of ownership is  ordi-\nnarily involved in cases of succession falling within s.  26\n(2) and s. 25 (4),\t  it is not an essential element  of\nsuccession within the meaning those provisions.\n    The\t words \"in such capacity\" in 8.26 (2) and s. 25\t (4)\nmean nothing more than the capacity of a person who  carries\non the business as the predecessor was carrying it on,\tthat\nis, with liability to be taxed on its profits and gains.\n970\n    Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v.P. E, Polson  (L.R.\n7 I.A. 196) referred to.\n    Jupuli   Kesava   Ra, o  v. Commisioner  of\t  Icome-tax,\nMadras (59 Mad. 377) explained.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    APPEAL (Civil Appeal No. CV of 1949) from  a Judgment of
\nthe  Bombay High Court (Chagla C.J. and Tendolkar J.)  dated
\nMarch 19, 1948, in a reference made by the Income-tax Appel-
\nlate Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian  Income-tax
\nAct (Income* tax Reference No. 26 of 1947).
\n    Sir N.P. Engineer (R. J. Kolah, with him) for the appel-
\nlant.\n<\/p>\n
    M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, (G. N. Joshi,
\nwith him) for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1950.  December  21.  The Court  delivered\tJudgment  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
    KANIA  C.J. — This is an appeal from a judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court  at\t Bombay\t delivered on  a  reference  by\t the
\nIncome-tax  Appellate Tribunal under the  Indian  Income-tax
\nAct.   The material facts are these.  The assessees  (appel-
\nlants) are the executors of the will of Mr. J.K. Dubash\t who
\ndied on the 9th of April, 1942, having made his last will on
\nthe  8th of April, 1942. Probate of the will was  issued  to
\nthe executors on the 10th of August, 1942. During his  life-
\ntime,  the  testator  carried on the  business\tof  shipping
\nagents.\t  Clause  13 of the will contains  directions  about
\ncarrying on this business of the testator till its disposal.
\nIt directs the executors to carry on the business as a going
\nconcern\t after his death with power to make fresh  contracts
\nand  discharge the existing and future liabilities  and\t all
\nother usual-and necessary  powers,  unless  special  circum-
\nstances\t arose which, in the opinion of the executors,\tmade
\nit expedient to sell the business earlier. This business was
\nto  be carried on for a period not exceeding  twelve  months
\nduring which time the executors were to ascertain whether or
\nnot  any  of his nephews was willing to\t purchase  the\tsaid
\nundertaking.  For this purpose and generally for  sale\tpur-
\nposes,\the  directed that the executors shall,\tas  soon  as
\npossible,
\n971<\/span>
\nafter his death, have a valuation made of the said undertak-
\ning.   The undertaking was to be sold so as to\tinclude\t all
\nhis  interest in the premises, the goodwill,  the  stock-in-
\ntrade,\tplant, furniture etc. but excluding  securities\t for
\nmoney  and cash in the bank to the credit of the account  of
\nthat  undertaking.  If the executors were  satisfied  before
\nthe  expiration of one year from the testator’s\t death\tthat
\nthe  said undertaking would not be sold to his\tnephews\t be-
\ncause  none  was  willing or able to purchase it  or  if  it
\nremained unsold, at the end of a year, to any of the nephews
\nthen  (whichever  event first happened) the  executors\twere
\ndirected  to  sell the undertaking to such third  person  on
\nsuch  terms  and at such price as they thought\tproper.\t The
\nclause\tended with the following words:-.-“I  expressly\t de-
\nclare  that in carrying on the said undertaking my  trustees
\nshall, in addition to all powers, discretion and authorities
\nvested in them by law, have power to carry on or discontinue
\nany  part of the said undertaking or to augment or  diminish
\nthe capital employed and generally to act as absolute owners
\nwithout being responsible for any loss.”  The business\twas,
\nso1d to one of the nephews on the 1st of January, 1943.\t The
\nappellants  contended that within the meaning of section  25
\n(4)  of\t the  Indian Income-tax Act the\t succession  to\t the
\nbusiness  took place on the 1st of January, 1943, while\t the
\ntaxing authorities contended that the succession was on\t the
\n9th  of\t April,\t 1942, when the testator  died.\t  The  first
\nquestion  submitted for the High Court’s opinion related  to
\nthis dispute.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t second question referred to the High Court for\t its
\nopinion was in respect of an amount paid by the executors to
\nthe  widow  of\tthe testator.  That  question  was  answered
\nagainst\t the appellants by the High Court.  Learned  counsel
\nappearing  for the appellants intiated that he did not\twant
\nto  contest  the High Court’s decision on  the\tpoint.\t The
\nappeal therefore is limited to the first question only.
\n    Section  25\t of the Indian Income-tax Act,\t1939,  gives
\ncertain\t concessions in respect of a business where tax\t had
\nbeen paid by the person carrying the business
\n972<\/span>
\nunder  the  provisions of the Indian Income tax\t Act,  1918.
\nThe material part of sub-clause 4 of section 25 is in  these
\nterms :–\n<\/p>\n
    “Where  the\t person who was at the commencement  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax  (Amendment)\t Act, 1939  (VII  of  1939),
\ncarrying  on any business, profession or vocation  on  which
\ntax  was  at any time charged under the\t provisions  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncometax  Act, 1918, is succeeded in such  capacity
\nby another person…………  ”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t scheme\t of section 25 read with the  provisions  of
\nsection 26 (2) appears to be to give relief, inter alia,  to
\npersons\t who were carrying on business in 1921 and had\tbeen
\ntaxed on their income under the Income-tax Act of 1918.\t  By
\na  change  effected by the Incometax Amendment Act  of\t1922
\nthey  were  subjected to taxation twice on’  the  income  of
\n1921-22.   The relief is intended against this levy  of\t tax
\ntwice over.\n<\/p>\n
     The  rival contentions urged on behalf of\tthe  parties
\nare  these.  The assessee contends that on the death of\t the
\ntestator  under clause 13 of the will of the  deceased,\t the
\nexecutors were carrying on the business of the deceased only
\nfor  the purpose of winding it up, and there was no  succes-
\nsion to the business on the death of the deceased within the
\nmeaning\t of  section 25 (4) of the Income-tax  Act.   It  is
\nargued\tthat  the clause provides for nothing  else  than  a
\ndirection to carry on the business with a view either (a) to
\nsell it within a year to one of the nephews, or (b) to\tsell
\nit  to someone else at the end of the year as a\t going\tcon-
\ncern.  it was pointed out that all directions in the  clause
\npermitting contracts to be made etc. were for the purpose of
\nkeeping\t the  business alive and not allowing it to  die  so
\nthat the business which was a valuable asset of the deceased
\ncould be sold as a going concern with its goodwill.  It\t was
\ntherefore  argued that the succession to the  business\ttook
\nplace  only on the 1st of January, 1943, when  the  business
\nwas sold by the executors to one of the nephews in terms  of
\nclause\t13  of\tthe will. In actual money,  the\t contest  is
\nwhether the executors
\n973<\/span>
\nare  entitled to get the benefit of the exemption  from\t in-
\ncome-tax in respect of the profits earned only for the\tnine
\ndays between the 1st of April and the 9th of April, 1942, or
\nbetween\t the 1st of April, 1942, and  1st of January,  1943,
\nunder section 25 (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act.  The High
\nCourt has answered the\tquestion against the assessee.
\n    In\tour  opinion, the conclusion of the  High  Court  is
\ncorrect.  It cannot be disputed that in the event of a\tsale
\nor gift of the business by the original owner the succession
\nwithin the meaning of section 25 (4) will take place only on
\nthe date of such sale or gift and the exemption from liabil-
\nity  to tax will be for a period terminating on.  that\tday.
\nIt  cannot again be seriously disputed that if the  testator
\nsettled’  his business on trust under a deed  of  settlement
\nthere will be a succession to the business by another person
\non the day of the settlement.  Similarly in the event of his
\ndeath intestate his heir-at-law will succeed to the business
\non  the date of his death.  The argument advanced on  behalf
\nof the appellants that in the present case having regard  to
\nthe  terms of clause 13 of the will there has been “no\tsuc-
\ncession\t in  such capacity to another  person”\tbecause\t the
\nexecutors were carrying on the business only with a view  to
\nsell  it as a going concern, cannot be accepted\t because  on
\nthe  day of the death of the deceased the  estate  including
\nthe  business got vested in the executors and the  executors
\ncarried on the business within the meaning of section 3 read
\nwith  section  10 of the Act and as such  became  personally
\nliable\tas assessee. Thus there came about a change  in\t the
\nassessee and therefore “a succession in such capacity”\ttook
\nplace within the meaning of section 25 (4) of the Income-tax
\nAct.   It seems clear that if the testator  had\t transferred
\nthe business to a trustee, although the trustees will not be
\nthe beneficial owners, in law there will be a succession  of
\nthe  business to another person within the meaning of.\tsec-
\ntion 25 (4) of the Indian Income.tax Act.  If in such a case
\nthat  result  follows there appears no reason why  when\t the
\nlegal estate is transferred by operation of law to an execu-
\ntor
\n974<\/span>
\nthere should not be considered a succession to the estate by
\nanother\t person\t within the meaning of the same\t section  25
\n(4).   The words “in such capacity” in that  clause  further
\nmake the position clear.  It makes the distinction of  legal
\nand beneficial ownership irrelevant. The contention that the
\nbusiness was to be carried on by the executors as such, as a
\ngoing concern or that it was being carried on for the  bene-
\nfit or loss of the testator’s estate is not relevant for the
\npresent\t discussion.  The only relevant question under\tsec-
\ntion  25  (4)  of the Indian Income-tax Act  is\t whether  in
\nrespect\t of  the business there is a succession\t to  another
\nperson. This is a provision to give relief and the scope  of
\nthe  relief must be governed by the words used in  the\tAct.
\nIn our opinion the answer to this question, on the facts  of
\nthe  present case, must be in the affirmative and the.\tdate
\nof such succession must be considered to be the death of the
\ntestator,  which was on the 9th of April, 1942.\t The  result
\nis that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nPATANJALI  SASTRI  J.–I  agree that  this  appealshould  be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
     The  material facts have been set out in  the  judgment
\nwhich  has just been delivered.\t The only question  now\t re-
\nmaining\t for decision is:on what date was the testator,\t who
\nwas  carrying  on the business of shipping  agent  and\tland
\ncontractor  “succeeded in such capacity by  another  person”
\nwithin the meaning of section 25 (4) of the Act–on the\t 9th
\nApril,\t1942, when the testator died and the  appellants  as
\nthe executors took over the business and carried it on or on
\nthe 1st January, 1943, when the business was sold by them as
\na going concern ?\n<\/p>\n
     The  business being admittedly one\t which\twas  charged
\nto  tax\t under\tthe Income-tax Act, 1918, if  there  was  no
\nsuccession  within the meaning of section 25 (4)  until\t the
\nsale took place, as the appellants contend, the profits\t and
\ngains  of the period from 1st April, 1942, to  1st  January,
\n1943,  would not be liable to tax, whereas. if the  testator
\ncould be said to have been “succeeded”\n<\/p>\n
   975<\/span><\/p>\n
by  the appellants, the profits of the much  shorter  period
\nbetween 1st April, 1942, and 8th April, 1942, alone would be
\nexempt\tfrom taxation.\tThe reason for this relief is to  be
\nfound in the change of the basis of taxation when the Act of
\n1922  was passed which resulted in the profits of  the\tyear
\n1921-22 being assessed twice over, once in that year as\t the
\nincome thereof on adjustment” under the Act of 1918 and once
\nin the next year as the income of the “previous year”  under
\nthe  Act  of 1922 [see Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,  Bombay
\nv.P.E.\tPoison(1)].   The relief was, however,\tconfined  to
\ndiscontinued  businesses,  as, in cases of  succession\ttill
\n1938 the successor alone was assessed to tax on the whole of
\nthe  profits of the previous year including those earned  by
\nhis  predecessor before the succession\toccurred.   But\t the
\nIndian\t Income-tax  (Amendment)  Act,\t1939,\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as the amending Act), having amended section  26
\n(2)  so as to provide, in the case of a succession in  busi-
\nness,  prolession  or vocation, for the\t assessment  of\t the
\npredecessor and the successor, each in respect of his actual
\nshare  of the profits of the previous year, the\t relief\t was
\nextended,  by enacting section 25 (4), to  cases of  succes-
\nsion occurring after the commencement of that Act, with\t the
\nsame  object as in the case of discontinuance,\tnamely,\t  to
\nredress\t  the hardship of the business having  been  Charged
\ntwice  over on the income of 1921-22.  In other\t words,\t the
\npredecessor is given the same relief as if he had discontin-
\nued the business on the date of succession.  It will thus be
\nseen  that the enactment of section 25 (4) is  consequential
\non  the\t amendment  of section 26(2),  and  the\t  scope\t and
\nmeaning\t of  the expression “succeeded in such\tcapacity  by
\nanother\t person” in section 26 (2) must determine  also\t its
\nscope and meaning in section 25 (4).\n<\/p>\n
    The\t first question which arises on the language of\t the
\namended section 26 (2), which speaks of “the person succeed-
\ned” being “assessed” and of his not being “found”, is wheth-
\ner the sub-section should be construed as applicable only to
\ncases of succession
\n976<\/span>
\ninter  vivos.\tWhatever force there may have been  in\t the
\nsuggestion that the sub-section could not have\tcontemplated
\ncases  of  testamentary\t or  intestate succession  if  there
\nwas no provision for the assessment\tof profits earned by
\na deceased person in the hands\t  his representatives, there
\nseems  to be no sufficient    reason for excluding from\t the
\nscope of the sub-section   cases  of  succession on death in
\nview  of the provision in section 24B.\tOn the\tother  hand,
\nproviso\t (c)  to section 24(9), which refers to a  person  ‘
\n‘succeeded in such capacity by another person otherwise than
\nby inheritance “, would seem to imply that “succession”,  as
\nthat term is used in the Act, includes devolution on death.\n<\/p>\n
      The  next\t question is what is the meaning to  be\t at-
\ntributed  to the phrase “in such capacity”? A Full Bench  of
\nthe  Madras High Court in Jupudi Kesava Rao v.\tCommissioner
\nof Income tax. Madras(1), held that the expression meant “in
\nthe  capacity as owner “, so that “the person  who  succeeds
\nanother\t must, by such succession, become the owner  of\t the
\nbusiness which his predecessor was carrying on and which he,
\nafter the succession, carries on in such capacity, that\t is.
\nthe capacity as owner “.  Applying that test they held\tthat
\nthe  sole surviving member of a Hindu undivided\t family\t did
\nnot succeed to the business of the family within the meaning
\nof  section 26(2), as he was previously a part-owner of\t the
\nbusiness’ and there was no transfer of ownership.  While  it
\nis  undoubtedly true that a transfer of ownership  is  ordi-
\nnarily\tinvolved in cases of succession failing within\tsec-
\ntion 26 (2)  or section 25(4), it cannot, in my opinion,  be
\nregarded  as an essential element of succession\t within\t the
\nmeaning of those provisions. The Income-tax Act directs\t its
\nattention  primarily to the person who receives the  income,
\nprofits\t or gains rather than to the ownership or  enjoyment
\nthereof.  The  assessee is defined in section 2 (2)  as\t the
\nperson\tby whom the income-tax is payable and by section  10
\nthe  tax is payable by an assessee who carries on the  busi-
\nness, profession or
\n(1) I.L.R 59 Mad 377
\n977<\/span>
\nvocation. The statute thus fastens on the person who carries
\non  the business, etc., the liability to pay the tax on\t the
\nprofits\t earned\t by him regardless of their  destination  or
\nenjoyment.  It is also worthy of note that in  serviral\t in-
\nstances\t person who have no  proprietory or other  right  in
\nthe income charged to tax are made liable to pay the tax for
\nno  other  reason  than the convenience\t of  assessment\t and
\ncollection. Such instances are to be found in section  26(2)
\nproviso, section 18 (7),  section 23-A (3), section 25-A and
\nsection\t 42(1).\t As  observed by Lord Cave  in\tWilliams  v.
\nSinger & Others(1) “the fact is that, if the Income-tax Acts
\nare examined, it will be found that the person charged\twith
\ntax is neither the trustee nor the beneficiary as such,\t but
\nthe  person  in actual receipt and control  of\tthe  income,
\nwhich it is sought to reach”.\n<\/p>\n
    There seems to be no warrant, therefore, to insist on  a
\ntransfer  of ownership as the decisive test of\t‘succession’
\nwithin\tthe  meaning of section 26(2) or section  25(4)\t any
\nmore than for insisting on the ownership of the business  by
\nthe  person  carrying  on a business, for  the\tpurposes  of
\nsection 10.  I do not of course wish to be understood to say
\nthat  a clerk or an agent in management of a business  would
\nbe an assessee liable to be taxed in respect of its  profits
\nand -gains.  Some kind of title there must be, though not of
\na  beneficial character. Nor need it be of the same  quality
\nin the predecessor and the successor.  The question in\teach
\ncase must be: Is the person who has come in carrying on\t the
\nbusiness  as a principal ?  If so, the Revenue looks to\t him
\nand makes him liable for payment of the tax.  The words\t “in
\nsuch  capacity” in sections 25 (4) and 26 (2)  mean  nothing
\nmore than the capacity of a person who carries on the  busi-
\nness  as the predecessor was carrying it on that is, with  a
\nliability to be taxed on its profits and gains.
\n    Applying  these  principles to the present\tcase,  I  am
\nclearly of opinion that the testator who was carrying on the
\nbusiness in question was succeeded in such
\n(1) [1921] 1 A.C. 65
\n125<\/span>
\n978<\/span>
\ncapacity  by  the  appellants when the former  died  on\t 9th
\nApril,\t1942,  and his estate vested in\t them.\t As  already
\nstated,\t the testator expressly authorised the\t  appellants
\nto  carry on the business as a going concern  for  one\tyear
\nafter  his  death and gave them power to  enter\t into  fresh
\ncontracts  and to discharge liabilities\t  past\tand  future.
\nThey  are  thus an “association of    persons”\tcarrying  on
\nbusiness, and, being assessable as   such in respect of\t the
\nprofits and gains of the business   carriedon by them  under
\nsection\t 10 read with section 3 of the Act, they are  liable
\nto  be\ttaxed on the   profits earned after the\t 9th  April,
\n1942.\n<\/p>\n
    It was objected that the appellants being assessable  as
\nthe  representatives of the testator under section  24-B  in
\nrespect\t of  the profits earned by him in    the  accounting
\nyear,  they  could not be treated as  successors  assessable
\nunder  section\t26  (2)in respect of\tthe  profits  earned
\nduring the rest of that year, as such\tapportionment  would
\nbe meaningless, the same interest,   namely, the  testator’s
\nestate,\t having to bear the incidence of the tax  in  either
\ncase.  It was accordingly   suggested that unless there\t was
\na break in the continuity of the interest represented by the
\nexecutors, there   could be no real apportionment such as is
\ncontemplated   by section 26 (2) and, therefore, no  succes-
\nsion  within   the meaning of that section or of section  25
\n(4)  where   the same expression is used.  The argument\t is,
\nin  my\t opinion,  fallacious.\tIt  overlooks the   distinc-
\ntion\tbetween the position of the executors visa  vis\t the
\nRevenue and their position visa vis the testator’s   estate.
\nAs already pointed out, their liability to pay\t the tax  on
\nthe profits earned after the testator’s death\tarises under
\nsection\t 10 (1) and, being that of assessees\tcarrying  on
\nthe  business,\tis personal to them, although\t as  between
\nthem and the estate they would be entitled   to be  indemni-
\nfied in respect of the tax paid; while their   liability  to
\npay  tax  on  the profits earned  during  the\t  testator’s
\nlife-time  arises  under section 24-B and, being    that  of
\nlegal representatives of the testator, is limited   “to\t the
\nextent to which the testator’s estate is capable   of  meet-
\ning the charge”.  It is therefore not correct to
\n    979<\/span>
\nsay  that  an apportionment under section 26  (2)  would  be
\nmeaningless,  though,  if the testator’s estate\t was  suffi-
\nciently\t solvent,  it  would have    no\t practical  signifi-
\ncance.\n<\/p>\n
DAS J.–I agree with the Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: R.S. Narula.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondent:P. A. Mehta.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 21 December, 1950 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 111, 1950 SCR 969 Author: H J Kania Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj) PETITIONER: EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF J.K. DUBASH Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAYCITY. DATE OF […]<\/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-217935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nExecutors Of The Estate Of J.K. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 December, 1950 - 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\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950\" \/>\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=\"1950-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-11T08:33:53+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 21 December, 1950\",\"datePublished\":\"1950-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T08:33:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950\"},\"wordCount\":3324,\"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\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950\",\"name\":\"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1950-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-11T08:33:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 21 December, 1950\"}]},{\"@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":"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 December, 1950 - 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\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1950-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-11T08:33:53+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 21 December, 1950","datePublished":"1950-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T08:33:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950"},"wordCount":3324,"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\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950","name":"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1950-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-11T08:33:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/executors-of-the-estate-of-j-k-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-december-1950#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Executors Of The Estate Of J.K. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 21 December, 1950"}]},{"@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\/217935","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=217935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}