SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 137

J.L.KAPUR, M.HIDAYATULLAH, S.R.DASS
Pivare Lal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-tax Delhi – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the proper head of income for emoluments received by the Treasurer of a bank: salary under S. 7 or profits and gains of business under S. 10? What are the rights and status of Sheel Chandra's emoluments: do they form part of the Hindu undivided family income or are they his separate income? What test or criteria should determine whether a banker’s Treasurer acts as a servant (master–servant) or an independent contractor/agency for tax purposes?

Key Points: - The emoluments of the Treasurer are assessed as salary under S.7, not as profits and gains of business under S.10. (!) (!) - The Treasurer’s emoluments are personal income of Sheel Chandra, not of the Hindu undivided family (Karta). (!) (!) - The agreement and conduct show the Treasurer was in a servant-employer relationship with the Bank, not an independent contractor/agency. (!) (!) - The High Court erred in treating the relationship as master–servant; the Court concluded the Treasurer is a servant of the Bank. (!) - The decision discusses tests for distinguishing master–servant vs. independent contractor, including control, duties, and system of supervision. (!) (!)

What is the proper head of income for emoluments received by the Treasurer of a bank: salary under S. 7 or profits and gains of business under S. 10?

What are the rights and status of Sheel Chandra's emoluments: do they form part of the Hindu undivided family income or are they his separate income?

What test or criteria should determine whether a banker’s Treasurer acts as a servant (master–servant) or an independent contractor/agency for tax purposes?


Judgment

KAPUR, J.: This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab made on a reference under S. 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act which was answered in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The appellant is the assessee - a Hindu undivided family - with Sheel Chandra as its Karta and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax.

2. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1951-52. The appellant, a Hindu undivided family, consisted of Sheel Chandra and his younger brother. Their father Adishwar Lal. upto his death on 16-4-1950, was the Treasurer of several branches of the Central Bank of India (which in the judgment will be referred to as the Bank). During his father s lifetime Sheel Chandra was employed as an Overseer in the Bank on a salary of Rs. 400 a month. Sheel Chandra was appointed Treasurer of the Bank at Delhi and sixteen other branches of the Bank. As treasurer he furnished security to the Bank of certain properties of the Hindu undivided family, which consisted of title deeds of immovable properties in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and Government of India securities of the value of Rs. 75,000. The Hindu undivided family owns considerable pro

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top