Casual receipt exemption fails for one-time arbitrator fees earned through a remunerated occupation under tax law.

Arbitration fees received for a one-time appointment were held taxable, because the payment arose from the exercise of an occupation and was not a casual or non-recurring windfall. The Court construed section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 as excluding receipts connected with a profession, vocation, or occupation from exemption, and held that "occupation" can include a remunerated activity undertaken on a single engagement. On the facts, the arbitrator accepted the assignment in expectation of lump-sum remuneration, so the receipt was attributable to that occupation and assessable to tax. The reference was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum received for acting as an arbitrator was exempt from assessment as a casual and non-recurring receipt under section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The receipt was held to be taxable income and not a mere windfall. The Court construed section 4(3)(vii) as excluding receipts arising from the exercise of a profession, vocation, or occupation from the exemption, and held that the word "occupation" includes being engaged in a particular activity for remuneration even if it is undertaken only once. On the facts, the arbitrator accepted the assignment because a lump sum remuneration was promised and expected, so the payment arose from the exercise of the occupation of an arbitrator and was not casual.

Conclusion: The receipt was not exempt under section 4(3)(vii) and was assessable to tax.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and the arbitration fee was held taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Ratio Decidendi: A remunerated one-time engagement may constitute an occupation, and a payment received for such engagement is not a casual receipt exempt under section 4(3)(vii) when it arises from the exercise of that occupation.

---