http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX KERALA ANDCOIMBATORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHNA WARRIAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/04/1964

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1965 AIR   59            1964 SCR  (8)  36  CITATOR INFO :  E          1976 SC1836  (20)  RF         1977 SC2211  (10)  R          1978 SC1443  (7)  RF         1980 SC 387  (11,26)

ACT: Income Tax-Exemption train taxation-Business held in trust- Part  of profits to be utilised for religious or  charitable purpases- 37 Business,  if  property-Indian Income-tax Act, 1922  (11  of 1922), s. 4(3)(i).

HEADNOTE: A testator was carrying on business in Ayurvedic drugs under the name and style of Arya Vaidya Sala.  Under his will  his properties, A including the business, were held under  trust and  the object of the trust was to utilise 60 per  cent  of the  profits  of the business for 20 years and 85  per  cent thereafter  for  religious  and  charitable  purposes.   The assessment  years in question fell within 20 years from  the death  of the testator and the question was whether  the  60 per cent of the income from the trust properties was  exempt from assessment to income-tax under s. 4(3)(1) of the Indian Income-tax  Act, 1922.  The Income-tax authorities  rejected the claim for exemption and assesses. the entire income from the said properties, on the ground that the substantive  cl. (i)  of s. 4(3) was not applicable to the case but only  cl. (b)  of  the  proviso  and that  the  conditions  laid  down thereunder were not complied with. HELD:     (i)  The business run under the name and style  of Arya  Vaidya  Sala  was property within the  meaning  of  s. 4(3)(i)  of  the  Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,  and  as  the entire  business was held in trust for utilising a  part  of its  profits for religious or charitable purposes, the  said income  was exempt from assessment to income-tax under  that section. (ii) Cl.  (b)  of the proviso to s. 4(3)(i)  was  applicable only to a business  not  held in trust but carried on on behalf  of  a religious or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

charitable     institution, (iii)     A  business  held in trust wholly or in  part  for religious or charitable purposes was not a business carried on on  behalf of a religious or charitable institution. (iv) The dichotomy between the two expressions "wholly"  and "in part" in s. 4(3)(i) was not based upon the dedication of the whole or a fractional part of the property, but  between the  dedication of the said property the income  from  which was  to  be  utilized wholly  for  religious  or  charitable purposes or in part for such purposes. (v)  The  expression "such income" in the opening  words  of the proviso to s. 4(3)(i) meant "income accruing or  arising in favour of the trust".

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal, Nos. 606-610  of 1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment dated January 20, 1961  of the Kerala High Court in Income-tax  Referred  Case No. 16 of 1959. K.   N.  Rajagopal  Sastri  and  R.  N.  Sachthey,  for  the appellant (in all the appeals). 38 S.   T. Desai and Sardar Bahadur, for the respondent (in all the appeals). April 29, 1964.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA  RAo  J.-These  appeals by  special  leave  raise  the question  of the construction of the provisions of  s.  4(3) (i)  of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter  called the  Act, as am-ended by the Indian  Income-tax  (Amendment) Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Amending Act. The  facts  are as follows.  One P. S. Warriar,  an  eminent Ayurvedic physician, carried on business in Ayurvedic  drugs under the name and style of "Arya Vaidya Sala" and was  also running  a hospital named "Arya Sikitsa Sala" and  a  school called  "Arya Vaidya Pata Sala".  The said Warriar  died  on January 30, 1944, after executing a will wherein he  created a trust in respect of his properties, including the Arya Vaidya Sala. He gave directions to the trustees appointed under thesaid will to conduct the said business and to disburse theincome therefrom in certain proportions to  the Arya Vaidya Sala, Arya Sikitsa Sala and Arya  Vaidya Pata  Sala  and to his descendants.  Broadly stated  60  per cent  of  the income was directed to be spent  on  the  said three  institutions  and  40 per cent to  be  given  to  his descendants.   Till  the Amending Act came  into  force  the Incometax Department gave exemption from assessment for  the 60 per cent of the income under s. 4(3) (i) of the Act; but, after  the  Amending Act came into force,  which  was  given retrospective operation from April 1, 1952, the said Depart- ment  refused  to  give exemption from  assessment  even  in regard to the 60 per cent of the income.  For the assessment years  1954-55 and 1955-56 the Income-tax Officer  ,assessed the  entire income from the said properties; and in  respect of the income pertaining to the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54, which had already been assessed in the usual course giving exemption for the said 60 per cent of the income, the Income-tax Officer issued notices under s. 34 of the Act and by  two separate orders dated September 28,  1956,  assessed the  said 60 per cent of the income on the basis of  escaped assessment.  On December 20, 1956, 39

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

for  the assessment year 1956-57 the Income-tax Officer,  in the  like manner, assessed the entire income from  the  said properties.   The appeals filed by the assessee against  the said  orders of assessment to the Appellate  Assistant  Com- missioner  were  dismissed.  The appeals filed  against  the orders  of  the  Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner  to  the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, were consolidated and by  its  order dated February 28, 1958,  the  said  Tribunal allowed the appeals exempting 60 per cent of the said income from assessment to income-tax under s. 4(3) (i) of the  Act. The  references  made  to  the High  Court  of  Kerala  were dismissed.  Hence the present appeals. Mr.  Rajagopala  Sastri, learned counsel  for  the  Revenue, contends  that  under s. 4(3)(i) of the Act  whereunder  the said  income is given exemption from taxation, the  property wherefrom  the income is derived shall have been held  under trust  wholly  or  in  part  for  religious  or   charitable purposes, that the business run under the name and style  of Arya  Vaidya  Sala was not capable of being held  in  trust, that  even if it was capable of being held under  trust,  it was not wholly or in part so held in trust for religious  or charitable  purposes,  as  only a part  of  the  income  was directed to be spent  for religious or charitable purposes and that in  the circumstances cl. (b) of the proviso was attracted but the conditions laid down thereunder were not complied with. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. S. T. Desa, contends that business is property within the meaning of s. 4(3)  (i) of  the  Act  and  that it is held  in  trust  in  part  for religious  and charitable purposes and, therefore, the  sub- stantive part of the provision is attracted to the facts  of the case and hence the proviso is excluded. Before  we construe the relevant provisions of the  Act  and consider the arguments advanced on either side, it would  be convenient  at the outset to read the material part  of  the will  and  to  ascertain the scope of  the  bequest  created thereunder.  The will is marked as Annexure A2 in the  case. The relevant parts of the Will read: "1. Will executed by Panniampalli Warriath deceased Parvathi alias Kunkikutty Warassiar’s 40 son  Sri  Sankunny Warriar known as Vaidyaratnam Sri  P.  S. Warriar,  residing at Puthan Warian in Kottakkal  Amsom  and Desom of Ernad Taluk." "7. Apart from the properties mentioned in Schedule B, C and D  all  other  properties, movable  as  well  as  immovable, belonging  to  me  I hereby constitute into a  trust  to  be managed  by the trustees as per the directions in the  will. They  are described in Schedule E, and on my  demises  those properties  will vest in the trustees.  It is  MY  intention that except the properties mentioned in pares 4 and 5 (B,  C &  D Schedule), all my properties are to be included in  the Trust  and therefore, even if some item of property is  left out by inadvertence, it is also to be deemed included in the Trust and vested in the Trustees." "8.  Provisions regarding the Trust.  I hereby nominate  the following persons as the first Board of Trustees: - "9.  The  above  Trust  is  to  be  managed  and   conducted according to the terms and conditions detailed below:-             (A to F) ........................... G.   The primary and chief objects of the Trust are to  carry  on for ever the two institutions viz.,  the  Arya Vaidya  Sala  and  the Arya Vaidya  Hospital  on  the  lines followed  now  with the object of enlarging  and  increasing their  scope and utility.  The work of Arya Vaidya Sala  now

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

consists of, 1.   preparation of Ayurvedic medicines, 2.   sale of the same, 3.   treatment of . patients, receiving from them compensation according to their capacity and means, 41 4.   to conduct research into Arya Vaidyam with a view to make it more and more useful to the public. H.   The following are the matters conducted in the institution called the Arya Vaidya Hospital. 1.   To examine poor patients free of charge, to prescribe treatment for them and give medicines gratis (out- patient Department). 2.   To take in at least 12 poor patients at any time,  give them lodging and board and also  free  medicines and treatment free (the in-patient Department) . 3.   To carry out the said services with the help of an Arya Vaidyan and necessary operations with the help of an Allopathi doctor. 4.   Give treatment and medicines to all persons seeking  them, receiving from such of them as are able  such remuneration as they can afford including cost of medicines. The  Arya  Vaidya  Hospital  is  now  carried  on  with  the medicines  supplied by and taken from the Arya  Vaidya  Sala and  the  incidental expenses are now met from  out  of  the funds of the Arya Vaidya Sala. J.   The trustees are to run the above institutions according  to  the  intentions  expressed  above  with  such modifications as the circumstances may warrant. K.   In the Arya Vaidya Patasala run under the auspices  of  the  Arya Samajam, Aryavaidyam  is  taught  in accordance  with  the  service of  Ayurveda.   I  have  been meeting  the expenses of the said institutions, not  covered by its income.  From out of the profits of Arya Vaidya Sala. L.   Out of the net profits of the Arya Vaidya Sala 25 per cent is to be devoted to the develop- ment  of the Arya Vaidya Sala, 25 per cent for  meeting  the expenses  of  the Arya Vaidya Hospital and 25 per  cent  for division equally between the two tavazhies (this only for 25 years) out of the remaining 25 per cent a sum not  exceeding 10  per cent may be according to requirements, utilised  for the  purposes of the Arya Vaidya Patasala.  The balance,  if any,  that  may  remain  out  of  the  10  per  cent   after disbursement  to the Arya Vaidya Patasala, may be  used  for the  Arya Vaidya Sala itself.  The balance 15 per cent  .are to be deposited by the Trustees each year in approved  banks as  a Reserve fund for the two tavazhies for a period of  20 years and the fund thus accumulated inclusive of interest is to be divided equally among the two tavazhies equally  i.e., in moiety and it will be the duty of the Trustees to  invest ’the same on the authority of immovable properties. M.   The Trustees are not bound to pay any amount to the said two tavazhies after the expiry of 20 years.  The 40  per cent of the profit so earmarked for 20 years and  so released  after the expiry of 20 years are therefore  to  be utilised  for  the development of the Arya Vaidya  Sala  and Arya  Vaidya  Hospital according to the  discretion  of  the Trustees. E  Schedule: All remaining properties constituted  into  the Trust. will  be  seen from the said recitals of the Will  that  the stator created a trust in respect of his entire  properties, cluding  those  mentioned  in  Schedules  B,  C  and  D  and specifically  vested them in the trustees  appointed  there- under.   The  properties  so vested  included  the  business

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

mrried  on in the name and style of Arya Vaidya  Sala.   The main  objects  of the trust were to carry on  the  said  two institutions,  namely,  Arya  Vaidya Sala  and  Arya  Vaidya Hospital 43 and also the other objects mentioned thereunder.  Out of the income  from  the  business so vested in  the  trustees,  he directed the trustees to spend 25 per cent for the  develop- ment  of Arya Vaidya Sala, 25 per cent to meet the  expenses of  the Arya Vaidya Hospital, not exceeding 10 per cent  for the  Arya Vaidya Patasala, 25 per cent to be shared  equally by the two branches of the family of the testor for a period of 20 years and thereafter to be utilized for the purpose of the  Arya  Vaidya Sala and Arya Vaidya Hospital and  15  per cent  to be given to the said branches; that is to  say,  60 per  cent of the total properties for a period of  20  years from  the  demise  of the testator should  be  utilized  for religious and charitable purposes and thereafter 85 per cent to  be  utilized for the said purposes and the  rest  to  be spent   on   non-religious  and   non-charitable   purposes. Therefore,  under  the  Will  the  E  Schedule   properties, including the business, were held under trust and the object of  the trust was to utilize 60 per cent of the  profits  of the  business  for 20 years and 85 per cent  thereafter  for religious and charitable purposes.  The assessment years  in question fell within 20 years from the death of the testator and,  therefore, we are concerned only with 60 per  cent  of the  income  from  the trust properties.   The  question  is whether  the  60  per  cent of the  income  from  the  trust properties is exempt from assessment to income-tax under  s. 4(3)  (i)  of the Act.  The relevant provisions of  the  Act read: Section  4. (3) Any income, profits or gains falling  within the  following  classes shall not be included in  the  total income of the person receiving them: (i)  any  income derived from property held under  trust  or other  legal obligation wholly for religious  or  charitable purposes,  and in the case of property so held in part  only for such purposes, the income applied, or finally set  apart for application, thereto: Provided  that  such income shall be included in  the  total income........................ (b)  in the case of income derived from business carried  on behalf of a religious or charit- 44 ,able institutions, unless the income is applied wholly  for the purpose of the institution and either- (i)  the business is carried on in the course of the  actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the institution, or (ii) the  work  in  connection with the  businem  is  mainly carried on by beneficiaries of the institution. A brief history of the proviso may not be out of place here. Before  the amendment of this clause by the Amending Act  of 1953  the proviso was in the form of a separate  substantive clause  and was numbered as cl. (i-a).  The said  cl.  (i-a) came  under judicial scrutiny.  It was argued on  behalf  of the Revenue that though a business was held under trust  for religious  or charitable purposes, it would fall  under  cl. (i-a)  and the income therefrom could not be  exempted  from income-tax  unless  the  conditions laid down  in  the  said clause  were complied with.  In Charitable Gadodia  Swadeshi Stores v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1). the Labore High Court rejected that contention, and one of the  reasons given  for  the rejection was that if the  &aid  clause  was intended  to  narrow  down the scope of cl.  (i),  the  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

clause would have been added as a proviso to the old clause. Presumably on the basis of this suggestion the Amending  Act of  1953  substituted cl. (i-a) by cl. (b) of  the  proviso. But  it  is not an inflexible rule of  construction  that  a proviso  in a statute should always be read as a  limitation upon  the  effect  of the  main  enactment.   Generally  the natural presumption is that but for the proviso the enacting part  of the section would have included the  subject-matter of  the proviso; but the clear language of  the  substantive provision  as  well as the proviso may  establish  that  the proviso  is not a qualifying clause of the main  provisions, but  is in itself a substantive provision.  In the words  of Maxwell,  "the true principle is that the sound view of  the enacting clause, the saving clause and the proviso taken and construed together is to prevail". So  construed  we find no difficulty, as  we  will  indicate later (1)  (i944) 12 I.T.R. 385. in  our  judgment, in holding that the said cl. (b)  of  the proviso deals with a case of business which is not vested in trust  for  religious  or  charitable  purposes  within  the meaning of the substantive clause of s. 4(3) (i). With this introductory remarks we shall proceed to  construe the provisions of s. 4(3)(i) of the Act, along with cl.  (b) of the Proviso.  Under cl. (i), so far as it is relevant  to the  question  raised before us, to earn the  exemption  the income  shall  have been derived from property  under  trust wholly or in part held for religious or charitable purposes. Under cl. (b) of the proviso to that clause, in the case  of income  derived  from  business carried on on  behalf  of  a religious  or charitable institution, unless  the  condition laid  down  thereunder are complied with,  the  said  income cannot  be  exempted.  If business is property and  is  held under  trust ,wholly or partly for religious  or  charitable purposes,  it falls squarely under the substantive  part  of cl.  (i) and in that *vent cl. (b) of the proviso cannot  be attracted, as under that clause of the proviso the  business mentioned therein is not held under trust but one carried on on  I behalf of a religious or charitable  institution.   To take  a business out of the substantive cl. (i) of  s.  4(3) and place it in cl. (b) of the proviso, it is suggested that business is not property and that even if it is property the said  property  is not wholly or partly held  in  trust  for religious or charitable purposes.  That business is property is now well settled.  The Privy Council in In re Trustees of the  Tribune(’) did not question the view expressed  by  the Bombay  High  Court that business of running  the  newspaper Tribune  was  property  held  under  trust  for   charitable purposes.  This Court in J. K. Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of  Income-tax..Excess  profits Tax Bombay(’)  endorsed  the said  view and held that "property" is a term of the  widest import  and  that  business would  undoubtedly  be  property unless there was something to the contrary in the enactment. If  business was property, it could be held under trust  for religious  and  charitable  purposes.   As  the,business  of running  the  Arya  Vaidya  Sala  vested  under  trust   for religious and charitable purposes, it would fall under (1) (1939) I.T.R. 415 (P.C.) (2) (1958) S.C.R. 65 46 cl.  (i),  if the other conditions laid  down  therein  were satisfied.   The necessary condition for the application  of cl.  (i)  of s. 4(3) of the Act is that the  said  property, namely, the business, shall have been wholly or in part held for religious or charitable purposes.  As 40 per cent of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

profits  in  the business would be given to  purposes  other than religious or charitable purposes it cannot be said that the  business  was held wholly for religious  or  charitable purposes.   But as 60 per cent of the profits thereof  would be spent for religious or charitable purposes, the  question is  whether  it can be held that the business  was  held  in trust  in  part for religious or charitable  purposes.   The argument  advanced  on  behalf of the Revenue  is  that  the expression "in part" in cl. (i) applies only to a case where an  aliquot part of property is vested in trust and that  is not  legally possible in the case of business.  It  is  said that  a business is one and indivisible and, therefore,  the subject-matter of trust can only be the share of the profits payable   to  a  partner  during  the  continuance  of   the partnership or after its dissolution.  Reliance is placed in support  of the said proposition on the decisions in  K.  A. Ramachar  v.  Commissioner of Income-tax,  Madras(’),  David Burnet v. Charles P. Leininger(2), Mohammad Ibrahim Riza  v. Commissioner  of  Income-tax,  Nagpur(3).   The  first   two decisions  dealt with a different problem, viz., whether  an assessee is liable to tax on his share of profits in a  firm after  setting  or assigning the same in favour of  a  third party  and the courts have held that the profits accrued  to the  assessee before the assignments could operate  on  them and he was liable to be assessed to tax on the said profits. In  the  third decision, the Judicial  Committee  held  that there  was  no valid trust for charitable purposes,  as  the utilization of the income to charitable or secular  purposes was  left  to  the absolute discretion of the  head  of  the community.   None of the three decisions has any bearing  on the  question  whether  a business could be  held  in  trust wholly  or  in part for religious  or  charitable  purposes. That   question   falls  to  be  considered   on   different considerations. In our view, the expression "in part" does not refer to an aliquot part; if half a house is held in trust wholly for (1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 380        (2) (1932) 76 L.Ed. 665. (3) (1930) 57 T.A. 260 47 religious or charitable purposes, it would be covered by the first part of the substantive clause of cl. (i), for in that event the subject-matter of the trust is only the said  half of  the house and that half is held wholly for religious  or charitable  purposes.  The expression "in part",  therefore, must  apply to a case other than a property a part of  which is  wholly  held for religious or charitable  purposes.   In India  there  are a variety of trusts wherein  there  is  no complete  dedication  of  the property but  only  a  partial dedication.   A  property  may be dedicated  entirely  to  a religious or charitable institution or to a deity.  This  is an  instance  of  complete dedication.  A  property  may  be dedicated to a deity, subject to a charge that a part of the income  shall be given to the grantor’s heirs.   A  property may be given to an individual subject to, or burdened  with, a charge in favour of are idol or a religious institution or for  charitable purposes.  An owner of property  may  retain the property for himself but carve out a beneficial interest therefrom  in  favour of the public by way  of  easement  or otherwise.   There may be many other instance, where  though there  is a trust, it involves only a partial dedication  of the property held under trust in the sense that only a  Dart of the income of that property is utilized for religious  or charitable   purposes.   The  dichotomy  between   the   two expressions  "wholly" and "in part". is not based  upon  the dedication  of  the  whole  or  a  fractional  part  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

property,  but between the dedication of the  said  property wholly  for religious or charitable purposes or in part  for such  purposes.   If  so understood, the two  limbs  of  the substantive clause fall into a piece.  The first limb  deals with  a  property or a part of it held in trust  wholly  for religious  or  charitable  purposes,  and  the  second  limb provides  for  such  a property held  in  trust  partly  for religious  or charitable purposes.  On the said  reading  of the  provision it follows that the entire business  of  Arya Vaidya  Sala is held in trust for utilizing 60 per  cent  of its  profits  i.e., a part of the income, for  religious  or charitable  purposes.   The present case,  therefore,  falls squarely within the scope of the substantive part of cl. (i) of s. 4(3) of the Act. Even so it is contended that cl. (b) of the proviso imposes further limitations before the exemption can be 48 granted.  But the said clause of the proviso only applies to the  case  of income derived from business carried on  on  r behalf of a religious or charitable institution.  A business held in trust wholly or in part for religious or  charitable purposes  is  not  a  business carried on  on  behalf  of  a religious or charitable institution, for the business itself is held in trust.  A few decisions cited at the Bar bringing out the distinction between the substantive part of cl.  (i) of  s.  4(3)  and cl. (b) of the  proviso  may  usefully  be referred  to  at this stage.  Where a business was  held  in trust  for  charitable  purposes, a Division  Bench  of  the Bombay High Court in Dharma Vijiya Agency v. Commissioner of Income-tax,  Bombay  City(’) held that it was  not  business which  was carried on on behalf of religious  or  charitable institutions  within the meaning of cl. (b) of the  proviso. Shah J., after considering the relevant authorities and  the provisions of the Act, observed: "In  our  view, the business referred to in cl. (b)  of  the proviso need not be business which is held for religious  or charitable  purposes, provided it is business carried on  on behalf of a religious or charitable institution." Desai   J., stated thus: with the scope of property consisting of business held under trust wholly for religious or charitable purposes.  It  must of  necessity  mean that we have in clause (i) a  very  wide category of business which is trust property, and we have in proviso  (b) a restricted and a lesser category of  business which  is  carried  on by or on behalf  of  a  religious  or charitable institution." A  Division -Bench of the Kerala High Court  in  Dharmodayam ,Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala(’) expressed much to  the same effect.  A Division Bench of the  Madras  !High Court, in Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam v. Commissioner (1)  (1960) 38 I.T.R. 392, 405-466, 410. (2)  (11962) 45 I.T.R. 478. 49 of Income-tax, Madras(’), after considering the decisions of the various High Courts and the relevant provisions of the Act,                                               observed: A "When  the trustee acts, it is only the trust that acts,  as the trustee fully represents the trust.  A business  carried on on behalf of a trust rather indicates a business which is not  held in trust, than a business of the trust run by  the trustees." It concluded thus: "In  our opinion proviso (b) to section 4 (3) (i)  does  not restrict  the  operation of the main  provision  in  section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

4(3)(i).   If a trust carried on business and  the  business itself is held in trust and the income from such business is applied  or accumulated for application for the  purpose  of the  trust.  which  must of course be of a  religious  or  a charitable  character, the conditions prescribed in  section 4(3)  (i)  are  fulfilled  and the  income  is  exempt  from taxation.   This  exemption cannot be defeated even  if  the business  were  to be conducted by somebody else  acting  on behalf  of the trust.  Proviso (b) to section 4(3)  (i)  has application only to businesses which are not held in  trust, and  the field of its operation is, therefore, distinct  and separate from that covered by section 4(3)(i)." Emphasis  is laid upon the expression "such income"  in  the opening words of the proviso and a contention is raised that the income dealt with in the proviso is income derived  from property  held  under trust.  To state it  differently,  the adjective "such" in the expression "such income" refers back to  the  income in the substantive clause.   There  is  some plausibility in the contention, but if the interpretation be accepted,  we  will  be  attributing  an  intention  to  the legislature to make a distinction between business and other property though both of them are held under trust.  There is no acceptable reason for this distinction.  That apart,  the expression (1) (1963) 50 IT.R. 798, 807, 809. 51 S. C.-4 50 "such"  may  as well refer to the "income"  in  the  opening sentence of sub-s. (3).  The said sub-section says that  the incomes  mentioned thereunder shall not be included  in  the total  income, but the proviso lifts the ban and  says  that such  incomes shall be included in the total income  if  the conditions  laid  down  are satisfied.  We  think  that  the expression  "such income" only means the income accruing  or arising in favour of the trust. The  legal position may briefly be stated thus.  Clause  (i) of  s.  4(3) of the Act takes in every property or  a  frac- tional  part  of it held in trust wholly  for  religious  or charitable  purposes.  It also takes in such  property  held only  in part for such purposes.  Business is also  property within  the meaning of the said clause.  Clause (b)  of  the proviso  to s. 4(3) (i) applies only to a business not  held in trust but carried on on behalf of religious or charitable institutions. For  the foregoing reasons we hold that the High  Court  has correctly answered the question referred to it. In  the  result,  the appeals fail and  are  dismissed  with costs.  One set of hearing fees. Appeal dismissed.