Case Law Details
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
6. On account of the above difference, the matter has been referred to me. I have heard both sides. The facts recorded in the proposed orders are not in dispute. I entirely agree that unless and until the terms and conditions of advance are known and agreed between the parties or through Government of Kerala, assessee will not acquire any right to receive interest on the advanced loan and no income would accrue by way of interest. This is well settled position. As admittedly, no terms and conditions were settled between the parties, no right accrued to the assessee. For the aforesaid proposition, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sasoon and Company (1954) 26 ITR 27, wherein their Lordship of the Supreme Court has held as under:
“The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to received the income. There must be a debt owed to him by somebody. There must be as is otherwise expressed debitum in praesenti, solvendum in futuro (emphasis supplied): see W.S. Try Ltd. v. Johnson (Inspector of Taxes) (1946) 1 All ER 532 at 529 and Webb v. Stenton and others, Garnishes (12883) 11 QBD 518 at 522, 527. Unless and until there is created in favour of the assessee a debt due by somebody, it cannot be said that he has acquired a right to receive the income or that income has accrued to him.”
The aforesaid decision has been applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases.
7. In the case of CIT vs. Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath (1988) 171 ITR 417, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has observed as under:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
