1958 (3) TMI 97 - HC - Income Tax

Architects Prize Money Taxable as Professional Income

Parelkar, Gore and Parpia Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I

The Bombay High Court held that architects receiving a prize for submitting construction plans were liable to pay tax on the prize money. The court ... - Issues:1. Whether the prize money received by the architects constitutes income liable to tax.2. Whether the receipt falls under the exemption of casual and non-recurring income under section 4(3)(vii).Analysis:The judgment by the Bombay High Court, delivered by M.C. Chagla, J., pertained to architects who received a prize of &8377; 10,000 from the All-India Medical Institute for submitting plans for a construction project. The key issue was whether this prize money should be considered taxable income. The architects contended that the receipt was exempt from tax under section 4(3)(vii), which exempts casual and non-recurring income not arising from business or profession.The court analyzed the nature of the receipt in question and determined that it indeed arose from the exercise of the architects' profession. The architects, by submitting plans for construction projects, were performing their professional duties as architects. It was highlighted that their intention was not solely to win a prize but to secure the construction work associated with the first prize. The court emphasized that the receipt was a direct result of their professional skills and activities as architects, making it an income arising from the exercise of their profession.In comparing the case to an English precedent involving a professional golfer, the court noted that the golfer's private games and bets were distinct from his professional activities. In contrast, the architects' submission of plans and subsequent receipt of the prize were directly linked to their profession and not incidental to it. Therefore, the court concluded that the architects' receipt of the prize money was indeed connected to their profession and did not fall under the exemption for casual and non-recurring income.Ultimately, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling that the architects were liable to pay tax on the prize money received. The judgment highlighted the direct connection between the architects' professional activities and the receipt of the prize money, emphasizing that the receipt was not merely incidental but a result of their professional skills and efforts.