9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption clause under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 regarding a receipt arising from business or the exercise of a profession, vocation, or occupation. 2. Determining if a specific transaction qualifies as a receipt arising from business. 3. Assessing whether the transaction in question is of a casual and non-recurring nature. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involves interpreting the exemption clause under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 regarding a receipt not arising from business or the exercise of a profession, vocation, or occupation. The court emphasized that the exemption is of a negative nature and must be analyzed as an exception upon an exception. The court held that a receipt arising from business or the exercise of a profession, vocation, or occupation does not fall within the exemption clause. The judgment was guided by arguments from both sides and determined the grammatical construction of the exemption clause. 2. The next issue addressed in the judgment was whether the specific transaction in question qualifies as a receipt arising from business. The court examined the definition of "business" under Section 2, Sub-section 4 of the Act, which includes any adventure. The court concluded that the transaction, involving a commission from the negotiation of a sale of a large mill, falls within the definition of business. The court considered the evidence where the transaction was initially recorded as a business transaction by the assessee, further supporting the finding that it was a receipt arising from business. 3. The final issue analyzed in the judgment was whether the transaction in question was of a casual and non-recurring nature. The court discussed various precedents cited by both parties but ultimately focused on the word "nature" in the exemption clause. The court differentiated between a non-recurring occurrence and a transaction that might occur multiple times within a specific class of dealing. By providing examples and illustrations, the court concluded that the transaction, although isolated, was not of a casual and non-recurring nature as defined in the section. Additionally, the judgment included the court's response to each of the three questions submitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, ultimately determining that the particular profit in question was not of a casual and non-recurring nature. The judgment also ordered the assessee to pay the costs of the case as certified by the Government Advocate.
|
