MAHESH ANANTRAI PATTANI AND ANOTHER vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY NORTH,AHMEDABAD
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court, in a majority decision (Justices Kapur and Shah dissenting from Justice Hidayatullah), held that the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was a gift and not taxable remuneration for past services. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in treating the December 27, 1950 order as contemporaneous, as it was written six months after the payment. This erroneous approach led to the rejection of the later letter, which was considered more indicative of the true nature of the payment. The majority distinguished the case from P. Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, holding that the payment was a token of affection and regard, not an accrual by virtue of office. Justice Hidayatullah, dissenting, opined that the Tribunal was justified in preferring the earlier document and that the payment, despite being termed a gift, was in remuneration for past services, citing P. Krishna Menon as applicable. The majority allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Mahesh Anantrai Pattani, was the former Dewan of Bhavnagar State. In 1948, he was granted a monthly pension of Rs. 2,000. In May 1950, the Maharaja of Bhavnagar directed his banker to pay the assessee Rs. 5 lakhs. On December 27, 1950, the Maharaja issued an order stating that this sum was a gift in consideration of the assessee's loyal and meritorious services and should be debited to his personal expense account. The Income-tax Officer assessed this sum for the year 1951-52 under Section 7(1) read with Explanation (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee produced a letter from the Maharaja dated March 10, 1953, confirming the payment as a gift out of affection and regard. The Appellate Tribunal, considering the December 27, 1950 order more reliable as a contemporaneous document, upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision. The High Court, in an Income Tax Reference, answered the question against the assessee.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs paid to the assessee is taxable as remuneration for past services under Section 7(1) read with Explanation (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or is it a non-taxable gift? Assessee's contentions: The sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was a gift given out of affection and regard, not as remuneration for past services. The Maharaja's letter dated March 10, 1953, clearly states this. The Tribunal erred in treating the December 27, 1950 order as contemporaneous and more reliable, as it was written six months after the payment. Revenue's contentions: The sum was paid in consideration of loyal and meritorious services rendered by the assessee as Dewan. The Tribunal correctly considered the December 27, 1950 order as a contemporaneous document and found it more reliable than the later letter. The payment was in the nature of remuneration for past services, making it taxable under Section 7(1), Explanation (2). The Tribunal was within its rights to prefer one piece of evidence over another.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 7(1), Explanation (2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Iy6o November z9 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS MAHESH ANANTRAI PATTANI AND ANOTHER v. [1961] THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAYNORTH,AHMEDABAD (J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Income Tax-Gift or Remuneration for past services-Payment to retired Dewan. of 1-ndian State ~Ex-Ruler-Liability to· tax- Indian Income-tax Act, r922 (II of r922), s.7(r), Explanation (2). A who was the Dewan of the State of Bhavnagar before responsible government was introduced in the State, was grant- ed a monthly pension of Rs. 2,000 by the Maharaja of the State by an order dated January 15, 1948. On March I, 1948 the State of Bhavnagar was merged in the United States of Saurash- tra and the Maharajah ceased to be the Ruler of the State.
Subsequently on May 31, 1950, the Maharaja directed his banker in Bombay to pay A a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs out of the amount lying to his credit an<l when he was asked for instructions as to how that sum was to be entered in the books of account he pass- ed an order on December 27, 1950, to the effect that in conside- ration of A having rendered loyal and meritorious services the said sum was given to him as a gift and that the amount sho
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
