Case Law Details
RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS:
7. It is the first contention of the appellant that the amount in issue is not an income within the definition of the term `income’ set out in section 2(24) of the said Act. We are unable to accept this contention of the appellant and we agree with the findings rendered in this regard by all the lower authorities, including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its impugned order dated 26th July, 2006, for the reasons set out hereunder. Section 2(24)defines the term `income’ as and by way of an inclusive and not exhaustive definition. Section 14 of the said Act lays down the categories in which income can be classified for the purpose of charging the income tax. The same reads thus – ” 14 Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all income shall, for the purposes of charge of income-tax and computation of total income, be classified under the following heads of income:-
A. – Salaries B. – [ ] C. – Income from house property, D. – Profits and gains of business or profession. E. – Capital gains F. – Income from other sources Thus, the income received by an assessee is classified under the head (A) to (F), except (B) (the same having been omitted by the Finance Act 1988, w.e.f 1st April, 1989). If the income cannot be classified under heads (A) to (E) the same falls under head (F) being `income from other sources’. Section 56 of the said Act is relevant in this regard, which deals with `income from other sources’. The relevant portion of section 56 reads thus – “S.56 (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, namely …………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The appellant has admittedly received the amount in issue from Mr. Dalvi, in accordance with the MOU and/or the Release-deed entered into by and between the appellant and Mr. Dalvi. In view of these admitted facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the amount in issue so received by the appellant is not an income at all in terms of section 2(24) read with section 14 and section 56 of the said Act. We therefore, hereby reject the said contention of he appellant and confirm the findings of all the lower authorities, holding that the amount in issue received by the appellant is a income taxable under the said Act.
