SETH SHIV PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made under S. 66(1), Indian IT Act, 1922, by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee in respect of the asst. year 1960 -61 (the relevant previous year being the financial year ending March 31, 1960), and the question of law referred is :

(2.) THE connected reference concerns the same assessee and in respect of the asst. year 1961 -62. The questions of law referred are :

(3.) THIS quotation was referred to by a Full Bench of our Court in Rani Amrit Kunwar vs. CIT (1946) 14 ITR 561 (All)(FB). In that case the learned Judges considered that an agreement or an order of the Court requiring the payment of a periodical sum could be regarded as a source of income. In the case of income from business, which is a separate head under S. 6, each business has been treated as a distinct source of income. The decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. E. K. R. Savumiamurthy (1946) 14 ITR 185 (Mad) proceeds on that basis. In CIT vs. Lady Kanchanbai (1962) 44 ITR 242 (MP), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that each branch of a business could be described as a distinct source of income. A source of income, therefore, may be described as the spring or fount from which a clearly defined channel of income flows. It is that which by its nature and incidents constitutes a distinct and separate origin of income, capable of consideration as such in isolation from other sources of income, and which by the manner of dealing adopted by the assessee can be treated so.