1986 (9) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of offerings received by the assessee from disciples under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Taxability of a car received by the assessee as a benefit under section 28(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Determination of whether the assessee was carrying on a profession under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. The first issue pertains to the taxability of offerings received by the assessee from disciples. The Income-tax Officer estimated the value of offerings at Rs. 3,000, later reduced to Rs. 2,000. The assessee contended that the expenses incurred during lecture tours were met by disciples and should not be treated as income or perquisite. The Tribunal agreed, holding that such expenses should not be considered taxable income. The Department then referred the question to the High Court, which affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the expenses incurred by disciples for the assessee's lectures were not taxable income.

2. The second issue concerns the taxability of a car received by the assessee as a benefit. The Income-tax Officer included the value of the car, Rs. 16,100, in the assessee's income, considering it a benefit derived from donations made by followers who benefited from the preachings. However, the Tribunal disagreed, deleting the inclusion of Rs. 16,100 in the assessee's income. The Department referred two questions to the High Court, which had been answered in a previous case. The High Court relied on its previous decision and answered the questions in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the car received by the assessee was a benefit taxable under section 28(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. The final issue involves determining whether the assessee was carrying on a profession under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court's decision in a previous case was relied upon to answer this question, which was also answered in favor of the Revenue. The High Court affirmed that the assessee was indeed carrying on a profession, as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment was delivered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.