Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (8) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S. Johari, for the respondent These two appeals filed by the Revenue involve common question of law, and are therefore, being decided by this common order. Both the appeals have been admitted by different orders dt. 30.7.2007 and 19.4.2006, but by framing the same substantial question of law. It is different story, that the question as framed in appeal No.45/2006, as such, does not arise in appeal No.111/2007, inasmuch as appeal No.45/2006 arises out of appeal of the assessee filed before the tribunal, against invoking of the powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, while appeal No.111/2007 arises out of the regular appeal, filed by the assessee, with respect to the different year. But then the central question, about the entitle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ess practice, where supplier of certain goods do require advance for future purchase, the transactions of the assessee with its own sister concern is to be considered on different footing. Thus, it was found, that AO could not be said to be right in taking the view, that interest received by the assessee, from Wolkem India Ltd. was materially different in nature, from the interest in respect of other parties, without due enquiries. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Murli Investment Co. vs. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 368, wherein the income derived from surplus fund was not considered to be business income. With these findings, it was concluded, that while considering the total taxability in respect of the different items, erroneous .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue, that undisputedly, the amount of interest was received by the assessee from Wolkem India Ltd., and the income of the interest is always chargeable as "income from other sources" under section 56 of the Act, and since section 10B does not provide for exemption about income from other sources, the learned tribunal was in error, in granting exemption. Reliance on decision in Murli Investment's case was reiterated, to contend, that in the present case also, the interest was the yield of amount deposited by the assessee with the seller, and was independently received by the assessee, as interest, and therefore, it cannot be treated as business income, so as to entitle the assessee to exemption .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t also excludes therefrom such income as well, if the income is chargeable to income tax under the head "profit and gains of business or profession". Then according to section 14, the computation of total income is to be made for the purpose of charge of income tax. Section 14 as such does not separately classify income from interest, such income is sought to be covered only under section 14(F) which covers "income from other sources", which is defined as above under Section 56. Thus, from the above provisions, it is clear, that income from other sources, if falling within the definition of income, is taxable by virtue of section 14, and thus it is taxable income, but then, it is only one of the species of income, as defined in section 2(2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 859, 196 Vz. 992, the word "profit", as ordinarily used, is held to mean, the gain made upon any business or investment, and does not include compensation for labour. Then in George E. Warren Co. vs. U.S., D.C. Mass, 76 F. Supp. 587, 591, it has been held, that "Profits" is capable of numerous constructions, and for any given use, its meaning must be derived from the context. Likewise, in Gulf Refining Co. vs. Stanford, 30 So.2d 516, 517, 202 Miss. 602, 173 A.L.R. 1099, it has been held, that 'profit' is an elastic and ambiguous word, often properly used in more than one sense; its meaning in a written instrument is governed by the intention of the parties appearing therein, but any accurate definition thereof must always include, the eleme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates