9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (11) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid activities was ₹ 35,912-11-6 in the Sambat year 2005 Ram Navami when the bank suspended operation in May, 1948, and applied for a scheme. When the assessee was pressed by the bank for payment of the amount due on the overdraft, in 1950 the assessee approached the board of directors of the aforesaid bank and obtained a concession to adjust such fixed and other deposits of the bank as the assessee could tender, in settlement of the aforesaid outstandings at their face value, provided the assessee paid in cash ₹ 5,000 to the bank forthwith. In pursuance of that arrangement the assessee paid ₹ 5,000 to the bank in three instalments by February 19, 1952. The balance left thereafter in the overdraft account was thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n received did not amount to profit; nor was it earned in the course of business, as is defined by the Income-tax Act itself. The point that was referred to this court by the Income-tax Tribunal runs as follows: Whether the transactions entered into by the, assessee family in discharging its overdraft account could amount to a business so as to make the surplus of ₹ 16,995 arising therefrom income, profit and gains assessable under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. Mr. Sharma, appearing for the assessee, has contended before us that these transactions, by virtue of which the assessee purchased the full payment receipts from the depositors of the bank, did not amount to business, and, in this connection our attention was drawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed in section 4(3)(vii) of the Act. Clause (vii) itself makes it clear than once it is considered to be a receipt from business, whether it is of a casual nature or not is of no importance. This point also had been dealt with in the judgment of the Income-tax Tribunal. Mr. Sharma has drawn our attention to some authorities on the point, the first amongst them being the case of Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1948] 16 ITR 183 . In our opinion, the facts there are entirely different from the facts in the present case. What was held in that case and in other two cases of similar nature was that if a debtor is discharged from certain liability by the creditor that by itself does not amount to a profit for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
