HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
P. Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin and Coorg, Bangalore
Civil Appeal No. 401 of 1956
[1959] Supp. 1 SCR 133 ·
Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121 · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10, 4(3)(vii) (corresponding provisions discussed)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar · P. B. Gajendragadkar · A. K. Sarkar
Assessment years: 1122 M.E., 1123 M.E., 1124 M.E.
01 · Facts of the case
A retired police officer regularly taught Vedanta. A visiting disciple repeatedly paid sums into his Bombay bank account. The taxpayer disputed whether these voluntary receipts were income from a vocation.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Teaching was a vocation despite the absence of a profit motive or stipulated fee. The relevant inquiry was why the recipient received the payments: the teaching was the effective cause of the recurring gifts. Personal esteem generated by that teaching did not sever the vocational connection.
03 · Judicial decision
The disputed receipts were income from the teaching vocation, and the casual-receipt exemption did not apply.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Assessee appeal dismissed with Supreme Court costs. The favourable, unappealed High Court ruling on territorial accrual remained outside this appeal.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Record the factual connection between voluntary payments and the recipient’s vocation. Purely personal gifts unconnected with a vocation were distinguished; the label gift alone was insufficient.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 9-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
Statutory scope
Historical legislation expressly identified in this note. This is not a decision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Income-tax Act, 2025. Verify enacted wording, commencement, transition and subsequent judicial treatment independently before modern reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-23. Subsequent treatment and present-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note uses AI assistance and a preserved full-primary review, with refreshed exact original-byte verification. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.