9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is a perquisite or benefit obtained in the relevant accounting year within the meaning of section 2(24)(iv) and its value is assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 ?" The facts leading to the present reference briefly stated are that the assessee, L.Lakshmipat Singhania, was a director of J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. in the years 1955-56 and 1956-57. He resigned as a director in the year 1956. Later on he was appointed as a financial adviser to the J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. and was allowed free use of the company's premises known as J. K. House at 12, Alipur Road, Calcutta, vide company's resolution dated April 19, 1956. He continued to act as the financial adviser of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l adviser. In this connection the fact that he was related to one of the directors of the company was immaterial. Hence, the perquisite obtained by the assessee could not be treated as his income under section 2(24)(iv). We are unable to accept this submission. The section merely provides that if any relation of a director derives the benefit or perquisite from a company it will be deemed to be his income. It does not state that the income should be derived by a relation in any particular capacity. This distinction becomes obvious because of the use of the word " benefit derived by a relation of the director " instead of " the benefit or perquisite derived in the capacity of a relative of a director ". The benefit derived by L. Lakshmipat S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded on the basis that the value of the perquisite was his income from other sources. Merely because L. Lakshmipat Singhania chose to give advice to a particular company it did not necessarily mean that giving of financial advice was his business or profession. Since the facts for bringing the case under the head " profits and gains of business, profession or vocation " were not at all made out, the question of considering whether this income was taxable under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not at all arise for consideration. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the income-tax authorities were justified in treating it as an income from other sources and taxing it as such. In the result, we answer first part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
