SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
7th October, 1958.
T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND A.K. SARKAR, JJ.
P. Krishna Menon, Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Travancore Cochin and Coorg, Bangalore, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 401 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer an J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates and Mr. G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co. with him), for Appellant; M/s. K. N. Rajagopala Sastri, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, Advocates, for Respondent.
INCOME TAX - Assessment - Voluntary payment - Whether taxable - Test - Payment made to assessee, a teacher of Vedanta, by his disciple - Whether taxable.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a retired Superintendent of Police, was teaching Vedanta philosophy to a group of disciples, one of whom was Levy. Levy made several payments to the assessee, which were credited to the assessee's bank account. The Income-tax Officer assessed the assessee on the amounts transferred from his Bombay account to his Trivandrum account, holding that they were foreign income brought into Travancore State. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal confirmed the assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the payments made by Levy were taxable income of the assessee, as they were made in consideration of the teaching imparted by the assessee.
Issues: Whether the payments made by Levy were taxable income of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the payments made by Levy were taxable income of the assessee, as they were made in consideration of the teaching imparted by the assessee. The court observed that the teaching of Vedanta by the assessee was a vocation, and that the payments were made to the assessee by virtue of his vocation. The court further held that the payments were not exempt under S. 4(3) (vii) of the Act, as they arose from the exercise of a vocation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgement
A. K. SARKAR, J. : The appellant who was a Superintendent of Police in the service of the former Travancore State, retired sometime in 1940. After retirement he was spending his time in studying Vedanta philosophy and expounding the same to such persons as were keen on understanding it. He soon gathered about him a number of disciples, one of whom was J. H. Levy of London, U. K. Levy along with others used to receive instructions in Vedanta from the appellant. He used to come to Travancore from England at regular intervals and stay there for a few months at a time and attend the discourses given by the appellant and so had the benefit of his teachings on Vedanta.
2. Levy had an account in Lloyd s Bank at Bombay. On December 13, 1941, Levy transferred the entire balance standing to his credit in this account amounting to Rs. 2,41,103-11-3, to the credit of an account which he got the appellant to open in his name in the same bank. Thereafter, from time to time Levy put in further sums into the appellant s aforesaid account in Lloyd s Bank, Bombay. It appears that the payment so made up to August 19, 1951 amounted to about Rs. 4,50,000. From time to time the appellant got moneys transferred from his account at the Lloyd s Bank, Bombay, to his account in a bank at Trivandrum in Travancore.
3. This appeal arises out of orders for assessment to income-tax passed against the appellant for the assessment years 1122, 1123 and 1124, all according to the Malayalam era. The respective accounting periods according to the Gregorian calendar were from August 17, 1945, to August 16, 1946, August 17, 1946, to August 16, 1947, and August 17, 1947, to August 16, 1948. It appears that during these periods Levy had deposited in the appellant s account at Lloyd s Bank in Bombay the following respective sums: Rs. 13,304, Rs. 29,948 and Rs. 19,983. During the same periods the appellant had obtained transfers of the following respective sums from his Bombay account to his Trivandrum account: Rs. 81,200, Rs. 47,000 and Rs. 37,251. The Income-tax Officer, Trivandrum, assessed the appellant to tax on the latter amounts as foreign income i.e., income arising in India, and brought into Travancore State in the relevant periods. We are not concerned in this case with the assessment made on other income of the appellant. The appellant appealed from these assessment orders to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who consolidated them into one appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of the Income-tax Officer. The appellant then went up in appeal to the appellate Tribunal but that appeal also failed.
4. The appellant thereafter obtained an order from the Tribunal referring the following questions to the High Court of Travancore-Cochin for decision :
"(i) Whether the aforesaid receipts from John H. Levy constitute income taxable under the Travancore Income-tax Act, l121? and
(ii) Whether there are materials for the Tribunal to hold that the deposits into the assessee s bank account in Bombay by John H. Levy from 1941 as aforesaid represented income that accrued to the assessee outside Travancore State?"
The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative. It however answered the second question in favour of the appellant, holding that he was carrying on a vocation or occupation in that State and the income derived therefrom should be considered as having arisen in Travancore, and that therefore the appellant was liable to be taxed not on the amounts which he brought into Travancore but on the amounts which had been paid to the credit of his account at Bombay by Levy during the relevant periods. The appellant has now come up to this Court in appeal by special leave against the answer given by the High Court to the first question. We are not concerned in this appeal with the answer given to the second question as it had been decided in favour of the appellant and there has been no appeal against it
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.