HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Manilal Dhanji
Civil Appeal No. 323 of 1961
[1962] 2 SCR 902 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(15), 4, 16(3)(a)(iv), 16(3)(b), 41(1), 66(1) and 66A(2) · Indian Trusts Act, 1882: section 8 · Income-tax Act, 1961: section 64(v), discussed but not treated as declaratory
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by S. K. Das, J. · S. K. Das, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J.
Assessment years: 1954-55
01 · Facts of the case
Two trust amounts were added personally: Rs.410 accumulated into corpus until the assessee's minor daughter reached 18, and Rs.14,170 paid under a family trust for the assessee, wife and children. The issues were clubbing and whether he was sole beneficiary (SCR pp.902-906; PDF pp.1-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Artificial clubbing liability required strict construction: the minor had no current right or benefit, only later income from enlarged corpus. The family instrument imposed binding trust obligations for indeterminate beneficiaries; the assessee was not sole beneficiary, though representative assessment at the maximum rate remained possible (SCR pp.907-917; PDF pp.6-16).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs and the High Court answers for the assessee affirmed (SCR p.917; PDF p.16).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on disputed personal-income additions, without exempting the Rs.14,170 from representative trustee assessment (SCR pp.916-917; PDF pp.15-16).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate current beneficial entitlement from future corpus enlargement, and personal beneficial receipt from representative receipt as trustee. Capacity determines the lawful assessment route.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 16-page SCR asset read and visually inspected; the adjacent-report tail on physical p.1 was excluded.
- Catalogue source S_1962_2_902_917: SHA-256 059c684b8cd4fe40fb565872ea88ff076244b466f4715b9e321e2c6e644b9e04, 16 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- The published original preserves the exact catalogue bytes and verified hash.
- The source verifies identity, bench, provisions, opinion structure and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment publication match was found.
Statutory scope
The Court noted broader 1961 Act language; this 1922 Act result is not current trust-planning guidance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.