HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Civil Appeal Nos. 2382-2383 of 1969
[1973] 2 SCR 1050 ·
Wealth-tax Act, 1957: sections 3, 5(1)(i), 21 and 27(1) · General Clauses Act, 1897
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by K. S. Hegde, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. · H. R. Khanna, J.
Assessment years: 1957-58, 1958-59
01 · Facts of the case
Four settlors created an Rs.11 lakh family trust that prioritized poor Seksaria family members and family maintenance and marriage benefits, with benefits to other Vaishya Hindus only later. The trustees contested assessability and claimed public-charitable exemption (SCR pp.1050-1053; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Act's context allowed individual to include joint trustees as an assessable unit. Reading the deed as a whole, the family-preference and priority clauses made the dominant purpose private; the broader residual benefit was marginal and did not create a public charitable trust (SCR pp.1053-1056; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Both appeals were dismissed with costs and one hearing fee (SCR p.1056; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on both assessable-unit and exemption issues (SCR pp.1055-1056; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: read the entire deed, especially priority and family-preference clauses and their practical capacity to absorb income. Analyze assessable-unit status separately from exemption (based on SCR pp.1053-1056; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 7-page count match catalogue asset 1973_2_1050_1056; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
This is historical Wealth-tax Act jurisprudence, not current charitable-trust or wealth-tax clearance.
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.