{"id":3784,"date":"1965-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965"},"modified":"2017-11-18T22:47:12","modified_gmt":"2017-11-18T17:17:12","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Managing Trustees, Nagore &#8230; on 8 April, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Managing Trustees, Nagore &#8230; on 8 April, 1965<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR   73, \t\t  1965 SCR  (3) 659<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANAGING  TRUSTEES,  NAGORE DURGHA,  NAGORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/04\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR   73\t\t  1965 SCR  (3) 659\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC2463\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\nWakf--Scheme for management of Muslim Wakf--Trustees  called\nNattamaigars  to manage wakf property--Surplus income to  be\ndistributed    among   beneficiaries   of    trust    called\nkasupangudars\taccording to definite shares--Income how  to\nbe assessed--Applicability of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922(11\nof 1929.), s. 41.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  scheme was settled in 1955 by the Madras High Court\t for\nthe  management of the income and properties of\t the  Durgah\nconsecrated to a saint in Tanjore District. Under the scheme\nthe management of the properties of the Durgah was to be  in\nthe hands of eight trustees called Nattamaigars one of\twhom\nwas  to\t be  elected  by them as Managing Trustee.  The\t net\nincome of the trust was to be distributed among\t descendants\nof the foster son of the saint, called Kasupangudars,  whose\ndefinite  shares were to be determined each year by  a\tlist\nprepared by the Managing Trustee.  For the assessment  years\n1953-54\t and  1954-55, the Income-tax Officer  assessed\t the\nsurplus\t income\t of the wakf in the hands  of  the  Managing\nTrustee\t  as  an  association  of  persons.   The   trustees\nunsuccessfully\t appealed   to\t the   Appellate   Assistant\nCommissioner  and  the Appellate Tribunal.  The\t controversy\ncentred\t round\tthe  question  whether s.41  of\t the  Indian\nIncome-tax  Act,  1922 applied to the case. In\ta  reference\nmade  by  the Tribunal at the instance of the  assessee\t the\nHigh Court held that that s. 41 applied to the case and that\nthe  income  was received by the trustees on behalf  of\t the\nbeneficiaries.\tAggrieved,  the Commissioner of\t income\t Tax\nappealed, by certificate, to this Court.\n    It was contended on behalf of the appellant that as\t the\nproperties  vested in the managing trustee and\the  received\nthe  income  in\t his  own right and not\t on  behalf  of\t the\nbeneficiaries, though for their benefit, the said income  in\nthe hands of the managing trustee fell outside the scope  of\ns.41 of the Act.\nHELD:  The High Court had rightly answered the\tquestion  in\nfavour of the assessee.\n(i)  The technical doctrine of vesting is not imported\tinto\ns.  41.\t This  is  apparent from the  fact  that  a  trustee\nappointed   under a trust deed is brought under the  section\nthough\tlegally the property vests in him. In the case of  a\nMuslim Wakf the property vests in the Almighty; even so\t the\nmutawallis  are brought under the section. Thus in  some  of\nthe persons enumerated in the section property vests and  in\nothers\tit  does not. A\t reasonable  interpretation  of\t the\nsection is that all categories of persons mentioned  therein\nare  deemed to receive them on behalf of another  person  or\npersons or manage the same for his or their benefit. None of\nthem has  any beneficial interest in the income; he collects\nthe  income for the benefit of others. In this view even  if\nthe Nattarnaigars were trustees in whom the\n65\n660\nproperties  of the Durgah vested, they should be  deemed  to\nhave received the income only on behalf of the Kasupangudars\nin definite shares. [662G-663B]\n   (ii)\t The mutawalli of a Muslim Wakf is merely a  manager\nand  not  a \"trustee\" as understood in the  English  system.\n[663E]\n   Vidya  Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar, (1921) 48\tI.A.\n32  and Allah Rakhi v. Mohammad Abdur Rahim, (1933) 61\tI.A.\n50, relied on.\n    Therefore  in terms of s.41 of the Act the\tNattamaigars\nwere  the manager of the properties on behalf of  other\t and\nwere  entitled to receive the income therefrom on behalf  of\nthem. [663G-H]\n    (iii)  Under c1.3 of the scheme it was  the\t \"management\nand  administration\" of the Durgah and its properties  which\nwas  vested  in\t the Nattamaigars  and\tnot  the  properties\nthemselves.  In the absence of clear words it could  not  be\nheld  that  the\t High  Court in framing\t a  scheme  for\t the\nendowments  of the Durgah had  introduced a foreign  concept\nof  \"trust\"  in\t derogation of Mohammadan  Law.\t The  scheme\ntherefore  did not vest the properties of the Durgah in\t the\nNattamaigars  and the contention on behalf of  the   Revenue\ncould not succeed. [664D, E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:\tCivil Appeals Nos.  213\t and<br \/>\n214 of 64.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 4, 1961,<br \/>\nof the Madras High Court in Case Referred No. 130 of 1956.<br \/>\n    Niren De,Additional Solicitor-General R. Ganapathy\tIyer<br \/>\nand R.N. Sachthey, for the appellants (in both the appeals.<br \/>\n    A.\t V.   Vishwanatha  Sastri,  M.M.   Ismail   and\t  R.<br \/>\nGopalakrishnan, for the respondent in both the appeals.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    Subba  Rao,\t J.  In\t the  t,own  of\t Nagore\t in  Tanjore<br \/>\nDistrict,  Madras  State, there is a Durgha  consecrated  to<br \/>\nHazerath Sayed Shahul Hameed Quadir Ali Ganja Savoy Andavar,<br \/>\nwho lived some 400 years ago. The said Durgha receives large<br \/>\nincome\tfrom  immovable\t properties endowed to\tit  and\t the<br \/>\nofferings in cash and kind made by the devotees. The  Durgha<br \/>\nand its properties are now being administered under a scheme<br \/>\nsettled\t by the Madras High Court on March 16,\t1955.  Under<br \/>\nthe  scheme  the  management of the  administration  of\t the<br \/>\naffairs of the said Durgha vests hereditarily in 8  trustees<br \/>\ncalled Nattamaigars, who constitute a board of trustees. The<br \/>\nsaid board of trustees shall from among themselves elect one<br \/>\nas a managing trustee and he shall hold office for a term<br \/>\n    of\t3  years. The managing trustee shall at the  end  of<br \/>\neach  fasli prepare a balance-sheet verified by the  manager<br \/>\nand  ascertain\tthe  net amount\t available  for\t payment  to<br \/>\nkasupangudars,\twho are the descendants of  Saiyed  Muhammed<br \/>\nEusoof,\t the foster son of the saint. The  Managing  Trustee<br \/>\nshall  declare\tthe  amount due to  each  of  the  kasupangu<br \/>\n(share)\t and shall allocate the amount to each\tkasupangudar<br \/>\n(sharer) in the list to be prepared for that purpose<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">661<\/span><br \/>\nin  each year. He shall pay the amount to each\tkasupangudar<br \/>\nin  accordance\twith the list. It is said  that\t at  present<br \/>\nthere  are   640  kasupangudars. Briefly  stated  under\t the<br \/>\nscheme the management of the properties of the Durgha,\tboth<br \/>\nmovable\t and  immovable,  vests\t in  Nattamaigars,  and\t the<br \/>\nkasupangudars  are  entitled  to the surplus  in  accordance<br \/>\nwith their shares.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 the Income-<br \/>\ntax Officer assessed the surplus income in the hands of\t the<br \/>\nManaging Trustee as an association of persons. The Appellate<br \/>\nAssistant  Commissioner, on appeal, confirmed the  same.  On<br \/>\nfurther\t appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal took\t the<br \/>\nsame  view.  At the instance of the assessee,  the  Tribunal<br \/>\nsubmitted the following question for the opinion of the High<br \/>\nCourt of Madras under s.66(1) of  the Income-tax Act.  1922,<br \/>\nhereinafter called the Act:\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;Whether\tthe provisions of Section 41 can be said  to<br \/>\napply to the assessees in this case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    A  Division\t Bench of the High Court,  which  heard\t the<br \/>\nreference.  held that the Managing Trustee qua\tthe  surplus<br \/>\nincome managed the property and derived the income on behalf<br \/>\nof the kasupangudars and that the assessment  should be made<br \/>\non  the said Managing Trustee to the extent of the  interest<br \/>\nof each of the kasupangudars in the income received by\thim.<br \/>\nIn  the result it answered the question in  the\t affirmative<br \/>\nand  in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of  Income-<br \/>\ntax, Madras, on a certificate of fitness granted by the High<br \/>\nCourt,\thas preferred the present appeals against  the\tsaid<br \/>\nOrder.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing\t for<br \/>\nthe Revenue, contended that the Natmaigars  being  trustees,<br \/>\nthe properties of the Durgha vested in them and,  therefore,<br \/>\nthey   or  the\tManaging  Trustee  administered\t the   trust<br \/>\nproperties  in\ttheir  own right and not on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nkasupangudars and hence s.41 of the Act did not apply,\twith<br \/>\nthe  result the Income-tax Officer had rightly assessed\t the<br \/>\nsurplus\t  income  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees  as\t  an<br \/>\nassociation of persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr.\t A.V.  Viswanatha Sastri, learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nassessee  respondent,  argued, on the other hand,  that\t the<br \/>\nNattamaigars  of the Durgha were not trustees as  understood<br \/>\nin  the\t law of trust but were only  managers  managing\t the<br \/>\nproperties  on\tbehalf of the Durgha and  kasupangudars.  On<br \/>\nthat   assumption,   his   argument   proceeded.   as\t the<br \/>\nNattamaigars, as managers, held the surplus on behalf of the<br \/>\nkasupangudars  for distribution in definite shares, s.41  of<br \/>\nthe Act was attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    At\tthe outset we may make it clear that in this  appeal<br \/>\nwe  are\t concerned only with the surplus remaining  on\thand<br \/>\nwith  the  Nattamaigars after meeting the  expenses  of\t the<br \/>\nDurgha.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">662<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    The\t problem  presented  in these appeals  falls  to  be<br \/>\ndecided\t on  a\ttrue construction of s.41 of  the  Act.\t The<br \/>\nmaterial part of s.41 reads:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    (1)\t In the case of income,\t profits  or<br \/>\n\t      gain  chargeable\tunder this  Act,  which\t the<br \/>\n\t      Courts  of Wards, the  Administrators-General,<br \/>\n\t      the  Official  Trustees  or  any\treceiver  or<br \/>\n\t      manager  (including  any person  whatever\t his<br \/>\n\t      designation  who in fact manages\tproperty  on<br \/>\n\t      behalf  of another) appointed by or under\t any<br \/>\n\t      order  of a Court, or any trustee or  trustees<br \/>\n\t      appointed under a trust  declared\t by  a\tduly<br \/>\n\t      executed\t instrument   in   writing   whether<br \/>\n\t      testamentary   or\t otherwise  (including\t the<br \/>\n\t      trustee or trustees under any Wakf deed  which<br \/>\n\t      is valid under the  Mussalman  Wakf Validating<br \/>\n\t\t\t    Act,   1913),   are\t  entitled  to\tre<br \/>\nceive  on<br \/>\n\t      behalf of any person, the tax shall be  levied<br \/>\n\t      upon  and\t recoverable  from  such   Court  of<br \/>\n\t      Wards,\t AdministratorsGeneral,\t    Official<br \/>\n\t      Trustee,\treceiver  or manager or\t trustee  or<br \/>\n\t      trustees,\t in the like manner and to the\tsame<br \/>\n\t      amount  as  it  would  be\t leviable  upon\t and<br \/>\n\t      recoverable from the person<br \/>\n\t\t    on whose behalf such income, profits  or<br \/>\n\t      gains  are receivable, and all the  provisions<br \/>\n\t      of this Act shall apply accordingly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Under  this section the income of properties  receivable<br \/>\nby  the\t enumerated  persons for the benefit  of  others  is<br \/>\nliable\tto   be assessed to tax in their hands in  the\tlike<br \/>\nmanner\tand to the same amount as it would be leviable\tupon<br \/>\nand  recoverable from the person or persons on whose  behalf<br \/>\nsuch income is receivable. This section centres on the basic<br \/>\nfact that the person in whose hands the income is assessable<br \/>\nshall  be  entitled to receive the  same on  behalf  of\t any<br \/>\nperson;\t if  he is not so entitled, the\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nsection cannot be invoked. So. it is contended that, as\t the<br \/>\nproperties  vested in the managing trustee and\the  received<br \/>\nthe  income  in\t his  own right and not\t on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nbeneficiaries, though for their benefit,, the said income in<br \/>\nthe hands of the  managing trustee fell outside the scope of<br \/>\ns.41 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    There  are two answers to this contention. The  doctrine<br \/>\nof vesting is not germane to this contention. In some of the<br \/>\nenumerated perso,ns in the section the property vests and in<br \/>\nothers it does not vest, but they only manage the  property.<br \/>\nIn  general law the property does not vest in a receiver  or<br \/>\nmanager\t but  it vests in a trustee, but both  trustees\t and<br \/>\nreceivers are included in s.41 of the Act. The common thread<br \/>\nthat  passes  through  all of them  is\tthat  they  function<br \/>\nlegally\t or factually for others: they manage  the  property<br \/>\nfor  the benefit of others. That the technical\tdoctrine  of<br \/>\nvesting is not imported in the section is apparent from\t the<br \/>\nfact that a trustee appointed under a trust deed is  brought<br \/>\nunder the section though legally the property vests in\thim.<br \/>\nIn  the\t case  of a Muslim Wakf the property  vests  in\t the<br \/>\nAlmighty;  even\t so  the mutawallis are\t brought  under\t the<br \/>\nsection. A reasonable interpretation of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">663<\/span><br \/>\nsection\t is  that all the categories  of  persons  mentioned<br \/>\ntherein\t are  deemed  to receive the  income  on  behalf  of<br \/>\nanother\t person\t or persons or manage the same\tfor  his  or<br \/>\ntheir  benefit. None of them has any beneficial interest  in<br \/>\nthe  income;  he  collects the income  for  the\t benefit  of<br \/>\nothers. In this view, even if the Nattamaigars were trustees<br \/>\nin whom the properties of the Durgha vested, they should  be<br \/>\ndeemed\tto  have received the income only on behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nkasupangudars in definite shares.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The same conclusion will be reached even if the  problem<br \/>\nwas  approached\t from a different angle. In  the  well-known<br \/>\ndecision  of the Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi\t Thirtha  v.<br \/>\nBalusami  Ayyar(1) the inappropriateness of the use  of\t the<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;trustee&#8221; to the manager of a Hindu or Mahommedan<br \/>\nreligious   endowments\twas  brought  out.   Therein   their<br \/>\nLordships observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;Neither under the Hindu Law nor in\t the<br \/>\n\t      Mahommedan system is any property\t  &#8220;conveyed&#8221;<br \/>\n\t      to a  shebait or a mutawalli, in the case of a<br \/>\n\t      dedication. Nor is any property vested in him;<br \/>\n\t      whatever property he holds for the idol or the<br \/>\n\t      institution  he holds as manager with  certain<br \/>\n\t      beneficial  interests regulated by custom\t and<br \/>\n\t      usage. Under the Mahommedan Law, the moment  a<br \/>\n\t      wakf is  created\tall rights of property\tpass<br \/>\n\t      out of the wakf, and vest in God Almighty. The<br \/>\n\t      curator,\t  whether  called    mutawalli\t  or<br \/>\n\t      saijadanishin, or by any other name, is merely<br \/>\n\t      a manager. He is certainly not a &#8220;trustee&#8221;  as<br \/>\n\t      understood in the English system.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    The\t Privy Council, in the context of a  wakf  property,<br \/>\nreaffirmed the said observations, in Allah Rakhi v. Mohammad<br \/>\nAbdur  Rahirn(2). The effect of the said decisions  is\tthat<br \/>\nNattamaigars  are  only the managers of\t the  properties  in<br \/>\nwhich  the  Durgha  and the  kasupangudars  have  beneficial<br \/>\ninterests.  The\t  properties   do  not vest  in\t them.\tThey<br \/>\nreceive\t the  income therefrom on behalf of  both  of  them.<br \/>\nAfter  meeting\tthe expenses of the Durgha  they  hold\tthe.<br \/>\nbalance\t on behalf of the kasupangudars and  distribute\t the<br \/>\nsame in accordance with their shares. In this view, in terms<br \/>\nof s. 41 of the Act the Nattamaigars are the managers of the<br \/>\nproperties on behalf of others and, are entitled to  receive<br \/>\nthe income therefrom on behalf of them. With the result, the<br \/>\nincome which they hold on behalf of the kasupangudars can be<br \/>\nassessed  only\tin  their hands\t in  the  manner  prescribed<br \/>\nthereunder. But it is said that whatever may the doctrine of<br \/>\nHindu  or Mohammadan law, under the terms of  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nscheme\tthe  properties\t vested\t in  the  Nattamaigars\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,  they receive the income in their own right\tand*<br \/>\nnot on behalf of the kasupangudars. A careful reading of the<br \/>\nrelevant<br \/>\n(1)(1921) L.R. 48 I.A. 302, 315.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) (1933) L.R.61.&#8217;. I.A. 50.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">664<\/span><\/p>\n<p>part  of  the  scheme does not\tcountenance  this  argument.<br \/>\nClause 3 of the scheme, which is the material clause, reads:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;The  management and  administration  of<br \/>\n\t      the  affairs of the Nagore Durgha\t at  Nagore,<br \/>\n\t      Tanjore\tDistrict,  and\tother  thakias\t and<br \/>\n\t      shrines  connected  therewith  (mentioned\t  in<br \/>\n\t      Schedule\t   A\t hereunder)\tand\t all<br \/>\n\t      properties&#8211;movables  and&#8217;   immovables&#8211;which<br \/>\n\t      belong  to  or have been or may  hereafter  be<br \/>\n\t      given,   dedicated,  endowed  thereto,   shall<br \/>\n\t      subject\t10  the\t provisions   thereof\tvest<br \/>\n\t      hereditarily   in\t  the  eight   trustees\t  or<br \/>\n\t      nattamaigars   of\t  the\tDurgha\t who   shall<br \/>\n\t      constitute the Board of Trustees. Each trustee<br \/>\n\t      or nattamaigar is entitled to hold&#8217; office for<br \/>\n\t      life,  and  after him  the  trusteeship  shall<br \/>\n\t      devolve on his next male heir  in\t  accordance<br \/>\n\t      with the custom prevailing in respect of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      office in the Durgha.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Under  this clause the management and administration  of<br \/>\nthe   Nagore   Durgha  and  its\t properties  vest   in\t the<br \/>\nNattamaigars.  What  vests in the Nattamaigars\tis  not\t the<br \/>\nproperties   of\t  the\tDurgha\tbut   the   management\t and<br \/>\nadministration\tthereof. Unless the words are clear  we\t are<br \/>\nnot prepared to hold that the High Court in framing a scheme<br \/>\nfor  the endowments of the Durgha had introduced  a  foreign<br \/>\nconcept\t of &#8220;trust&#8221; in derogation of Mohammadan\t  law.\t&#8216;We,<br \/>\ntherefore, hold that the scheme did not vest the  properties<br \/>\nof the Durgha in the Nattamaigars.\n<\/p>\n<p>Lastly, a faint argument was raised to the effect that under<br \/>\nthe scheme the managing trustee was not appointed  under any<br \/>\norder of a Court but was appointed by an agreement among the<br \/>\ntrustees.  But in cl. 4 of the scheme the High Court gave  a<br \/>\nspecific  direction  that  the\tmanaging  trustee  shall  be<br \/>\nelected\t from  among  the Board of  Trustees.  The  Managing<br \/>\nTrustee elected was certainly appointed under an order of  a<br \/>\nCourt,\tfor the election was held pursuant to the  order  of<br \/>\nthe  Court. That apart, in the view we have  taken,  namely,<br \/>\nthat the Nattamaigars are not trustees in the English  sense<br \/>\nof the term, this question does not arise for consideration.<br \/>\n    In\tthe result, we hold that the High Court has  rightly<br \/>\nanswered the question referred to it in the affirmative\t and<br \/>\nin  favour  of\tthe  assessee.\tThe  appeals  fail  and\t are<br \/>\ndismissed with costs. One hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">665<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Managing Trustees, Nagore &#8230; on 8 April, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 73, 1965 SCR (3) 659 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: MANAGING TRUSTEES, NAGORE DURGHA, NAGORE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/04\/1965 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. SHAH, [&hellip;]<\/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-3784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Managing Trustees, Nagore ... on 8 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Managing Trustees, Nagore ... on 8 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-18T17:17:12+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Managing Trustees, Nagore &#8230; on 8 April, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-18T17:17:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965\"},\"wordCount\":2071,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Managing Trustees, Nagore ... on 8 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-18T17:17:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Managing Trustees, Nagore &#8230; on 8 April, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Managing Trustees, Nagore ... on 8 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Managing Trustees, Nagore ... on 8 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-18T17:17:12+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Managing Trustees, Nagore &#8230; on 8 April, 1965","datePublished":"1965-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-18T17:17:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965"},"wordCount":2071,"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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Managing Trustees, Nagore ... on 8 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-18T17:17:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-managing-trustees-nagore-on-8-april-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; vs Managing Trustees, Nagore &#8230; on 8 April, 1965"}]},{"@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\/3784","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=3784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}