HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta v. Kokila Debi
Civil Appeals Nos. 220 to 230 of 1967
[1971] 1 SCR 312 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(9), 41(1) and 66(1)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · J. C. Shah, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: Assessment years not specified in the report
01 · Facts of the case
Badriprasad Agarwalla dedicated self-acquired properties for Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jew through a 1944 deed supplemented in 1947 and 1951. Two-thirds of rent supported worship; one-third met collection charges, taxes and property expenses. The Officer assessed trustees at the maximum rate. The Tribunal found the deity the sole beneficiary and the High Court agreed.
Source: SCR pp.313-315 / PDF pp.2-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Reading the deeds as a whole, the Court held that an isolated description of trustees as beneficiaries was a misnomer: they had no beneficial entitlement. The income was specifically receivable on behalf of the sole beneficiary, bringing it within the main section 41(1), rather than its first proviso. A trusteeship’s treatment as property for other purposes was irrelevant. The Court assumed, without deciding, the deity’s personhood under section 2(9).
Source: SCR pp.315-316 / PDF pp.4-5
03 · Judicial decision
The Revenue appeals were dismissed. Since the respondents were ex parte before the Supreme Court, no costs were ordered. The ordinary representative-assessment treatment upheld below remained undisturbed.
Source: SCR p.316 / PDF p.5
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The assessee trustees succeeded against maximum-rate treatment on these deeds and findings. This was not a ruling granting a general religious-trust income exemption.
Source: SCR pp.315-316 / PDF pp.4-5
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: read the full settlement and supplements to distinguish beneficial rights from management powers and expense retention. Identify for whom income is specifically receivable before selecting representative-assessment treatment. Do not cite this judgment as deciding the separately reserved personhood question or present-day exemption eligibility.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 5-page SCR report read, separating the editorial headnote from the judicial text.
- Full source read; exact original bytes match the catalogue SHA-256. Judicial text is unnumbered, so SCR and PDF page pinpoints are used.
Statutory scope
The decision applies section 41(1) of the repealed 1922 Act to the particular deeds and proceeds on an unchallenged assumption about the deity’s status.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent treatment has not been verified; no current 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.