https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39227 25% of the professional fees received by a State medical officer from Central Government employees was not diverted by an overriding title. The governing arrangement required 25% to be credited to Government and the balance paid to the officer, but it created no statutory charge on the source of income or direct legal obligation on the practitioner. The direction operated only as a post-receipt division of fees already earned, so it amounted to an application of income rather than diversion at source. The 25% share therefore accrued as part of the officer's taxable professional receipt and was taxable in his hands; the contrary view of the Tribunal was not sustainable. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:09:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39227 25% of the professional fees received by a State medical officer from Central Government employees was not diverted by an overriding title. The governing arrangement required 25% to be credited to Government and the balance paid to the officer, but it created no statutory charge on the source of income or direct legal obligation on the practitioner. The direction operated only as a post-receipt division of fees already earned, so it amounted to an application of income rather than diversion at source. The 25% share therefore accrued as part of the officer's taxable professional receipt and was taxable in his hands; the contrary view of the Tribunal was not sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39227