TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded for the purpose of assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim a separate previous year in respect of the salary income from a foreign employer ?" The facts which gave rise to the above questions may briefly be stated thus : The assessee has worked in National Gas Company at Bahrain for the period from January 30, 1980, to March 31, 1980. He had also received income under the head "Salaries" in India for the assessment year 1980-81. He had opted for a different previous year so as to protect his income earned at Bahrain (hereinafter referred to as "foreign income"), for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of separate sources of his income. " A plain reading of the above sub-section makes it clear that the assessee had an option to have different previous years in respect of separate sources of income. We may point out here that for choosing different previous years, the income need not necessarily fall under different heads. It is enough if it falls under different sources. What can be said to be the source of income ? A plain answer to this question, is in the dicta of the judicial Committee in Rhodesia Metals Ltd. v. Commr. of Taxes [1941] 9 ITR (Suppl.) 45 : " ' source ' means not a legal concept but which a practical man would regard as a real source of income.--- " This observation of the Privy Council was approved by our S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termination of the rate of tax. Subsequently, she became a resident of the Indian State and became assessable to tax in respect of the income that accrued to her in Madhya Bharath. For that income for the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee chose a different financial year ending March 31, 1950, as her previous year. The question that fell for consideration of the Supreme Court was whether she could choose a different previous year. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the income of the assessee earned in Madhya Bharath constituted a separate source and that the assessee could make the choice to have a different previous year for each separate source of income, profits and gains. This principle applies to the facts of our case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
