1928 (5) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A firm which had previously carried on the business now carried on by the assessees had been nominated by the Articles of Association of this company as their Managing Agents. No time was fixed throughout which they were to be the Managing Agents and no remuneration was settled for the office; but in point of fact, the firm and afterwards the company, namely, the present assessees acted as the Managing Agents and during certain years which are mentioned in the letter of Reference, received about half a lakh of rupees annually for their trouble. Now the business was coming to an end. The Cossipur Sugar works Ltd. was being wound up and the Resolution passed by the share holders was that an amount of 2 1/4 lakhs of rupees was to be paid to Me....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch have been cited before us was whether or not the payment in question was a perquisite of an office or employment. The scheme of the Indian Act is different. Section 4 sets out, in the first place, certain forms of income which are not to be exposed to Income Tax at all ; and it is in that connexion that Clause (7), Sub-section (3), is enacted. When we come to the subsequent section, we find that these sections beginning with Section 6 deal with incomes under certain heads specified by the statute. Section 6 lays down these heads and the following sections deal with each of those six heads. When we come to Section 10 we find that tax is payable under the head of "business" in respect of the profits or gains of any business carri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e got the money unless he had been the curate of the parish, still he got it as a testimonial for his work and not because he was curate. In the same way, in the case of Cowan v. Seymour [1920] 1 K.B. 500 the question was whether or not the voluntary payment accrued to the person by reason of his office. That was the case of a person who had acted as the secretary of a company. He was given what was called a testimonial. In view of the fact that it was a testimonial, it was held that it was not a perquisite of the office which had come to an end. Similar considerations were canvassed in the Cricketer's case [Seymour v. Reed [1927] A.C. 554and in the Jockey's case [Wing v. O'connel [1927] Irish Rep. 84 7. Now, in the case before....