TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xigible to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year is 1980-81. The scheme that had been formulated by that company in its centenary year was one, which was directed at increasing the sales of its manufactured goods through its dealers, and to achieve that object provided incentives to dealers who exceeded the targets fixed under the scheme. The relevant part of the scheme addressed to the dealers stated: "...to enable you to stock and sell more of these fabulous suitings, we offer-Bombay Dyeing Retailers a host of incentive..." The communication addressed to the dealers also stated: "We want you to put in a little extra effort, to try and sell Bombay Dyeing suitings, and now, to make it worth your while we offer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vation with regard to the scope of the term "income" for the purposes of the Act: "It is not easy to define income. The definition in the Act is an inclusive one. As said by Lord Wright in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 513, 521 (PC), 'income ... is a word difficult and perhaps impossible to define in any precise general formula. It is a word of the broadest connotation'. In Maharajkumar Gopal Saran, Narain Singh v. CIT [1935] 3 ITR 237, 242 (PC), the Privy Council pointed out that 'anything which can properly be described as income, is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted'." The court, in the case of G. R. Karthikeyan [1993] 201 ITR 866 (SC), reiterated the observations that had been ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus Out Of the way, there can be no difficulty in applying its natural and grammatical meaning to the ordinary English word "income". As already observed, the word should be given its widest connotation in view of the fact that it occurs in a legislative head conferring legislative power'." The apex court, in the case of G. R. Karthikeyan [1993] 201 ITR 866 went on to hold that: "Since the definition of 'income' in section 2(24) is an inclusive one, its ambit, in our opinion, should be the same as that of the word income occurring in entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution (corresponding to entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act)." In the case of P. Krishna Menon v. CIT [195....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee, who had been giving lectures on Vedanta, from a foreign disciple, constituted income in the hands of the assessee, as, though the payment was voluntary and had not been sought by the assessee, the monies were received by the assessee only by reason of the fact that he had been teaching the donor, and while so teaching he was practising a vocation. The court observed: "it is plain to us that it was because of the teaching that the gift had been made". The apex court in the case of Dr. K. George Thomas v. CIT [1985] 15 6 ITR 412, held that the burden is on the Revenue to establish that the particular receipt is of a revenue character. The court held that the monies received by a preacher who was spreading in India the ideals of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es not on that account render the payment as one falling outside the ambit of income for the purposes of the Act. The Act does not provide that monies paid to an assessee in appreciation of his personal qualities does not constitute income. Even casual and non-recurring receipts beyond the specified limit are expressly regarded as income. The courts have, however, while construing the scope of the Act, held that voluntary payments made for reasons purely personal to the donee and unconnected with the office or vocation would not be taxable. Learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the case of C. P. Chitrarasu v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 534 (Mad), wherein, it was held that the gift of a house to a politician on the occasion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rer. The receipt clearly was a trading receipt. There would have been no occasion for the assessee to receive this amount had it not been a dealer for the manufacturer, and had it not put in the additional efforts for which the incentive scheme had been drawn up by the manufacturer. The fact that the scheme was formulated as part of the observance of the centenary of the manufacturer makes no difference whatsoever to the character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee. The very object of the scheme was to promote the sales of the product, and to achieve those higher targets, incentives were offered. The assessee having met those targets became entitled to the incentive. The incentive so received is not very different from what a workm....