J. K. TRUST, BOMBAY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that a managing agency can be considered 'property' within the meaning of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court reasoned that the term 'property' is of sufficient amplitude to comprehend 'business', citing precedents like Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. The Government of Hyderabad. The Court also found that a trust can be created over property burdened with obligations, and when trustees conduct business with the aid of trust funds, it is legally equivalent to employing the funds in the business. However, the Court did not decide whether profits from business are exempt under Section 4(3)(i) when the conditions of Section 4(3)(ia) are not satisfied. This second question was remitted to the High Court for determination, as both parties agreed it would be more satisfactory to have it decided by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The J.K. Trust, Bombay, established in 1945 with a corpus of Rs. 1 lac, was created for charitable purposes. The trust deed allowed trustees to conduct business, including managing agency, for the trust's benefit. The trustees were appointed managing agents of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. with remuneration based on net profits and an office allowance. The trust claimed exemption for income derived from this managing agency under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arguing it was income from property held on trust. The Income-tax authorities contested this, asserting the income was remuneration for services, not derived from property, and that a managing agency is not property. They also argued that even if it were property, it was governed by the special provision of Section 4(3)(ia), which had not been satisfied.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a managing agency constitutes 'property' within the meaning of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, such that income derived from it is exempt from taxation if applied for charitable purposes. 2. If a managing agency is considered property under Section 4(3)(i), does the existence of a specific provision for business income (Section 4(3)(ia)) preclude exemption under the general provision (Section 4(3)(i)) when the conditions of Section 4(3)(ia) are not met? Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that the managing agency is a form of property and the income derived from it, being applied for charitable purposes, should be exempt under Section 4(3)(i). They relied on the broad interpretation of 'property' to include business and cited authorities like All India Spinners' Association v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that a managing agency is remuneration for services, not property. They contended that even if it were property, it falls under the specific provision of Section 4(3)(ia), and since its conditions were not met, no exemption could be claimed under the general provision of Section 4(3)(i), invoking the principle of 'Generalia specialibus non derogant'.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 4(3)(i), Section 4(3)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS J. K. TRUST, BOMBAY v. 65 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/EXCESS PROFITS TAX, BOMBAY (BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AIYAR and J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
Income Tax-Trust-Exemption from taxation-Trustees con- ducting business of Managing Agency for the Trust-Business, whether "property"-Incomefrom Managing Agency, whether income derived from property held on trust-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), s. 4(3) (i) and (ia). A deed of trust whereby a sum of Rs. 1 lac was settled on various charities specified therein provided for the acquisition of the business of managing agency on behalf of the trust and with the help of the trust fund. The trustees of the said trust (appellant) became the managing agents of a public company.
The agreement for the agency provided, inter alia, that the agency was for a period of twenty years but that it was open to the trustees to give up the agency on giving three month's notice and that the managing agents were to get a remuneration of 10 per cent. of the net annual profits subject to a minimum of Rs. 50,000 and an office allowance of Rs. 1,000 per mensem. The appellant claimed that the income derived from th
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 →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
