It was held that teaching was a vocation, if not a profession, and teaching Vedanta was just as much teaching as any other teaching and therefore a vocation; that in order that an activity might be called a vocation it was not necessary to show that it was an organised activity and that it was indulged with a motive of making profit; it was well established that it was not the motive of a person doing an act which decided whether the act done by him was the carrying on of a business, profession or vocation; and if any business, profession or vocation in fact produced an income, that was taxable income and none the less so because it was carried on without the motive of producing an income; that teaching of Vendetta by the appellant in that case was the 945 carrying on of a vocation by him and that the imparting of the teaching was the causa causans of the making of the gifts by L, and it was impossible to hold that the payments to the appellant had not been made in consideration of the teaching imparted by him, and that, therefore, the payments were income arising from the vocation of the appellants that the payments made by L were income arising from a vocation.