TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the commission and allowance income from Mewar Textile Mills belonged to the Hindu undivided family and not to the individual assessee; (ii) whether a different previous year could be adopted for the commission and salary income from the one adopted for other sources of income; (iii) whether amounts received in British India could also be treated as income accruing or arising outside British India and assessable under the relevant charging provision; and (iv) whether the sums of Rs. 2,48,341 and Rs. 2,39,070 were rightly treated as received in British India within the meaning of the Act.
Issue (i): Whether the commission and allowance income from Mewar Textile Mills belonged to the Hindu undivided family and not to the individual assessee.
Analysis: The Tribunal's factual findings showed that the managing agency income was assessable as family income and not as the separate income of the karta. On the material accepted by the Tribunal, the connection of the income with the family business and the surrounding circumstances supported that conclusion.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether a different previous year could be adopted for the commission and salary income from the one adopted for other sources of income.
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between a source of income and a head of income. The definition of previous year operates with reference to sources, so different sources under the same head may have different previous years. In addition, where an assessee has consistently been assessed on a particular previous year for a source, that basis continues unless alteration is permitted on application.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iii): Whether amounts received in British India could also be treated as income accruing or arising outside British India and assessable under the relevant charging provision.
Analysis: Dividend income accrued when declared, and commission and salary accrued when the right to receive arose. On that basis, the amounts were held to have accrued outside British India in the relevant years and, because they were later brought into or received in British India during the relevant previous year, they fell within the charging provision for assessment.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iv): Whether the sums of Rs. 2,48,341 and Rs. 2,39,070 were rightly treated as received in British India within the meaning of the Act.
Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the surrounding facts and circumstances to find that the two sums were brought into or received in British India. That finding was supported by material on record and could not be said to be unsupported by evidence.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: All the referred questions were answered adversely to the assessee, and the assessed income was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the income-tax scheme applied here, the previous year is source-specific rather than head-specific, an assessee's settled previous year for a source continues unless duly altered, and income accrues when the right to receive arises even if it is later received in the taxable territory.
TaxTMI 
