Concept & Distinction between real income & deemed income
Page Contents
Taxation Concept & distinction between of Real Income vs. Deemed Income:
The distinction between real income and deemed income is a fundamental concept in income tax law. It determines when and how income becomes taxable. Here’s an overview of the relevance of real income vis-à-vis deemed income, along with the legal framework supporting this distinction:
Real Income:
Legal Position on real income versus deemed income
The concept of real income versus deemed income plays a critical role in determining tax liability. While real income relies on the actual right to receive, statutory provisions can deem certain amounts as income even if they haven’t been realized. Taxpayers and professionals must carefully navigate these provisions to ensure accurate tax reporting and compliance, considering both the substance of transactions and the legal fictions created by the Income Tax Act.
Scope of Total Income: Section 5 defines scope of total income,
which includes:
- Income received or deemed to be received in India.
- The Income that accrues or arises, or is deemed to accrue or arise, in India.
- Income that accrues or arises outside India during the relevant previous year.
Judicial Precedents real income versus deemed income
Deemed income provisions are often introduced to address tax evasion and avoidance strategies that exploit loopholes in the law. By treating certain transactions as income, these provisions ensure that the tax base is not eroded and that all sources of potential income are adequately taxed. Despite their intent, deemed income provisions can sometimes lead to the taxation of amounts that do not represent actual financial gain. This can be seen as contradictory to the principle of taxing real income and may impose a burden on taxpayers who have not realized any actual income.
CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) (Supreme court):
- The Supreme Court held that only real income that genuinely accrued or was received during the relevant financial year should be taxed. This ruling emphasizes that mere book entries or hypothetical income without a right to receive cannot be taxed.
CIT v. Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1996) (Supreme court):
- The Supreme Court ruled that disputed income should not be taxed until it is realized, supporting the principle that income must be real and not hypothetical to be taxed under Section 5.
CIT v. M/s Excel Industries Ltd (2013):
- The Supreme Court reiterated that hypothetical income that has not been realized should not be taxed. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer should adopt a pragmatic approach, focusing on real income rather than a pedantic one that taxes unrealized or hypothetical income.