9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is to answer the following questions of law, namely : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 6,90,051, being the premium realised on the sale of import entitlements, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was liable to be taxed. The Income-tax Officer gave an opportunity to the assessee to show cause why the balance amount of Rs. 6,90,051 be not added to the assessee's income. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's explanation that the amount of Rs. 6,90,051 came to it as windfall and was casual income. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer added this amount also to the assessee's income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and the evidence on record, it would be clear that the premium received by the assessee was in the course of carrying on of the business and as a result of trading done by the assessee. In any view of the matter, the receipts in question arose from the business or the exercise of a profession, vocation or occupation. Thus, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 as income and the remaining amount as casual income as claimed by the assessee. We also find that in similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court in Agra Chain Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 840 rejected the assessee's contention that such an income was of casual nature and, therefore, exempt from tax. The test indicated in CIT v. Dr. K. George Thomas [1977] 108 ITR 1024 by the Ker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
