9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Accrual of income - whether in Part A States or Part B States. 2. Receipt of income - whether in Part A States or Part B States. Accrual of Income: The judgment addresses the issue of where the commission earned by the assessee accrued, focusing on the location of services rendered. The Tribunal concluded that the income accrued in Part A States, but the High Court disagreed. The High Court reasoned that the commission was received by the assessee for services rendered, and since all services were provided in Saurashtra, the accrual of income should be attributed to Saurashtra. The Court emphasized that the assessee's role was that of an agent facilitating the procurement of coal for mills, not a selling agent. It rejected the argument that the issue of quota and orders in Calcutta influenced the accrual location, emphasizing that the crucial factor was where the services were actually rendered. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in determining the accrual of income in Part A States. Receipt of Income: The judgment also delves into the issue of where the income was received. The Tribunal incorrectly concluded that the income was received in Part A States based on the mills sending cheques by post. However, the High Court disagreed, pointing out that the cheques were received by the assessee in Saurashtra, indicating the receipt of income in Saurashtra. The Court dismissed the relevance of the mills sending cheques from Part A States as a determining factor for the location of income receipt. Ultimately, the High Court answered the question in the negative, indicating that both the accrual and receipt of income should be attributed to Saurashtra. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs, and the question was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee.
|
