P. KRISHNA MENON versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSORE, TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND COORG, BANGALORE

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 07-10-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
133 
of supply of limestone even a part from his work in the 
Ga.ngapur quarry, and the agreement dated August 2, 
1941, provides for his supplying limestone for the 
furnaces at Kulti for a. period of 12 years and for 
loading iron at Monoha.rpore for a. like period. There 
was therefore at no time any agreement which operat-
ed as a bar to the carrying on of business by the res-
pondent. 
On a consideration of all the facts established, we 
are of opinion that the receipt of Rs. 2,50,000 by the 
respondent is a revenue receipt and is chargeable to 
tax. 
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of 
the High Court set a.side and the order of the Tl'ibuna.l 
restored. The respondent will pay the costs of the 
appellant throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
P. KRISHNA MENON 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 
MYSORE, TRA V ANCORE-COCJHIN AND 
COORG, BANGALORE 
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR 
and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) 
Income-tax-Assessee teaching Vedanta without object of mak· 
ing profit-If carrying on a vocation-Disciple making gift of money 
-Whether receipt amounts to income from vocation-Indian Income· 
tax Act, I922 (XI of r922), s. IO. 
The assessee was teaching his disciples Vedanta philosophy 
without any motive or intention of making a profit out of such 
activity. One of his disciples made gifts of money to him on 
several occassions. It was contended by the assessee that he was 
not liable to tax on the amounts received as he was not carrying 
on any vocation and as the receipts were not profits or gains. 
Held that, in teaching Vedanta the assessee was carrying on 
a vocation. It is not necessary for an activity to be a vocation 
Commission., of 
I ncom•-ra:r 
v. 
J air am Y alji 
Y •nkalarama 
Aiyar ]. 
October 7 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
r9j8 
that it should be an organised activity or that it should be 
--
practiced with a motive for making profit. 
P. KrishHa A.fenon 
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. [14corporatcd Cot4ncit of 
v. . . 
Law Reporting, (r888) 3 Tax Cas. ro5, IIJ, followed. 
Thd Cornu11ssror1er 
. 
. 
of lncome-J'a*, 
Mysore, 'fyavan-
core-Cochiu. and 
Coorg. lJangdlors 
Sarllar ]. 
H c/d, further, that the payments made by the disciple were 
income received by the assessee from his vocation. In the case 
of a voluntary payment, no tax can be levied on it if it had been 
made for reasons purely personal to the donee and unconnected 
with his office or vocation but it will be taxable if it was made 
because of the office or the vocation of the donee. The question 
is not what the donor thought he was doing but why the donee 
received it. In the present case it is plain that it was because of 
the teaching that the gift had been made. 
CIVIL APPELLA'rE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
401of1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated March 8, 1956, of the Travancore-Cochin 
High Court at.Ernakulam in l.T.R. No. 24of1954. 
A. V. ViBwanatha Sa8tri, S. R. Ganapathy Iyer, J.B. 
Dadachanji and G. GopalakriBhna, for t1ie appellant. 
K. N. Rajagopala Sastri, R.H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, 
for the respondent. 
1958. October 7. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SARKAR .J.-The appellant who was a Superintendent 
of Police in the service of the former Travancore 
State, retit'ed sometime in 1940. 
After retirement he 
was spending his time in studying Vedanta philosophy 
and expounding the same to such persons as were keen 
on understanding it. He soon gathered about him a 
number of disciples, one of whom was J. H. Levy of 
London, U.K. Levy along with others used to receive 
instructions in Vedanta from the appellant. He used 
to come to Travancore from England at reg\1lar inter-
v1tls and stay there for a few months at a time and 
attend the discoursed given by the appellant and so 
had the benefit of his teachings on Vedanta. 
Levy had an account in Lloyd's Bank at Bombay. 
On December 13, Hl41, Levy transferred the entire 
balance standing to his credit in this account amount-
ing to Rs. 2,41,103-11-3, to the credit of an account 
which he got the appellant to open in his name in the 
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
135 
same bank. Thereafter, from time to time Levy put in 
z9sa 
further sums into the appellant's aforesaid account in P. Krishna Menon 
Lloyds Bank, Bombay. It appears that the payments 
v. 
so made up to August 19, 1951, amounted to about Rs. The Commission.r 
4,50,000/-. From time to time the ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.