TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Earned Income Relief in Wakf Deed Bidi Business Case</h1> <h3>Haji Abdul Hameed (decd. By His L. Rs.) Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Uttar Pradesh</h3> Haji Abdul Hameed (decd. By His L. Rs.) Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Uttar Pradesh - [1985] 156 ITR 230 (SC) Issues:Earned income relief under s. 2(6AA)(b) or (c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 denied to assessees. Assessment under s. 41(2) instead of s. 41(1). Interpretation of income source under 'Profits and gains of business' and 'Income from other sources.' Discrepancy in judgments between different assessment years.Analysis:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of two assessees who were denied earned income relief by the taxing authorities, Tribunal, and High Court. The dispute revolved around income derived by the assessees as beneficiaries under a wakf deed related to bidi business. The income was earned by one beneficiary as a mutawalli and then distributed between the two brothers. The assessment proceeded under s. 41(2), and earned income relief was claimed under s. 2(6AA)(b) or (c) of the Act.Regarding one of the assessees, since he did not carry on the business or derive income from personal exertions, he was not entitled to earned income relief under either clause (b) or (c). The High Court correctly declined relief for him. The High Court also denied relief for the other assessee under clause (b) as the income was not assessable under 'Profits and gains of business' but under 'Income from other sources' due to the wakf deed's source. Additionally, under clause (c), the direct connection between personal exertions and income receipt was lacking, as the income was earned as a mutawalli and received as a beneficiary.The Court noted that if the assessment had proceeded under s. 41(1) instead of s. 41(2), the position might have been different. However, since the assessment was under s. 41(2), no relief was available to the assessees. The assessees relied on a subsequent High Court decision granting relief for a different assessment year, but the Supreme Court found discrepancies in that judgment's analysis and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that relief could not be granted under clause (b) if income arose due to the intervention of a wakf deed.
TaxTMI 