Civil Appeal No 1038 of 1973
Appeal by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated the 19th February 1973 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No 200 of 1971
section Chowdhuri PP Ginwala TA Ramachandran and DN Gupta for the Appellants
VS Desai Champt Rai and Miss A Subhashini for Respondents No 1  2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
This appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta
The appellants are partners of a firm of Solicitors known as Ms Orr Dignam  Co having its office at Calcutta
The appellants acted as the Solicitors of a German Corporation known as Ferbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Mester Lucius  Bruning a Corporation organised under the law of Federal Republic of Germany hereinafter referred to as the German Corporation   in two suits filed on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court one Suit No 511 of 1962 filed by the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd against German Corporation and another Suit No 1124 of 1962 filed by the German Corporation against the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd on the alleged infringement of a patent
The appellants were instructed by a firm of Solicitors in London namely Ms Ashurst Morris Crisp  Co hereinafter referred to as the London Solicitors  who were also acting for the German Corporation by a cable dated May 31 1965 to retain in the said suits Mr Blanco White QC a resident of the United Kingdom who was a barrister having considerable practice in the branch of patent law
On his arrival in India the appellants accordingly retained Mr Blanco White as the counsel to argue the case of their clients the German Corporation even though they did not deliver any briefs to him and also did not 390 pay or undertake any obligation to pay any fees for his services
The briefs had been earlier delivered by the London Solicitors
It is stated that they did not know as to how much amount was payable to him by the London Solicitors by way of fees
The hearing of one of the said two suits lasted for thirteen days commencing from January 27 1970 and was concluded on February 16 1970
Mr Blanco White left India on February 17 1970 after the hearing was over without making any arrangement regarding the payment of income tax on the fees earned by him by arguing the case of the German Corporation
Thereafter on February 19 1970 the appellants received a notice from the Income tax Officer A  Ward Foreiga Section asking them to furnish information about the fees earned in India by Mr Blanco White as counsel engaged by them to argue the case of their clients ie the German Corporation and also drawing their attention to the liability arising under section 195 2 of the Income tax Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act  which required them to deduct the tax payable under the Act at source on payments made to a non resident
The appellants sent a reply to that letter on February 24 1970 stating that Mr Blanco White had been engaged by the London Solicitors of the German Corporation to appear before the Calcutta High Court on behalf of the German Corporation and that they had neither briefed him nor had they incurred any liability to pay him any fees
They therefore denied their liability under section 1952 of the Act
Incidentally it may be stated here that the appellants referred to one other suit i e Suit No 422 of 1963 on the file of the Calcutta High Court filed by the German Corporation against Albert David Ltd in which also Mr Blanco White had been engaged for the German Corporation
Thereupon by a letter dated February 27 1970 the Income tax Officer informed the appellants that he proposed to proceed against them under section 163 1 of the Act treating them as the agents of Mr Blanco White on the ground that the income in question had arisen on account of the business connection that existed between the appellants and Mr Blanco White
To this the appellants sent a long reply dated March 1011 1970 denying their liability to be proceeded against under section 163 1 of the Act
In the course of the said reply the appellants contended inter alia that they had not either engaged or briefed Mr Blanco White in the three suits on the file of the Calcutta High Court that they had not paid or promised to pay any fees lo him and that therefore no income had accrued to Mr Blanco White on account of any business connection that existed between them and Mr Blanco White
The appellants further contended that as Mr Blanco White was a 391 barrister who was not carrying on any business but had only rendered professional service in Calcutta the connection if any could not be a business connection
They also questioned the jurisdiction of the Income tax Officer to make any assessment treating them as the representative assessees of Mr Blanco White
The Income tax Officer by his letter dated March 25 1970 rejected the plea of the appellants and called upon them to appear before them on April 18 1970 to make any other submission that they had to make
Thereafter the appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Calcutta and obtained a rule nisi on May 251970 calling upon the Income tax Officer the Commissioner of Income tax West Bengal and the Union of India to show cause as to why the proposal to initiate proceedings under the Act as stated above should not be quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus prohibiting them from proceeding against the appellants under section 1631 of the Act should not be issued
The petition was contested by the respondents
In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Income tax Officer it was asserted that the Department had received information that Mr Blanco White had charged Rs 17000 per day by way of fees for appearing in the Calcutta High Court in the suits referred to above that Mr Blanco White was not domiciled in India that inasmuch as his stay in India did not exceed ninety days it was not necessary for him to obtain a Tax Exemption Certificate for leaving India that the appellants had acted as instructing Solicitors to the German Corporation in the three suits in which Mr Blanco White had argued as counsel that he could not have according to the Calcutta High Court Rules Original Side appeared before that court unless he was instructed by an Attorney of that Court was in the instant case happened to be the appellants and that therefore
there existed a business connection which brought the appellants within the scope of section 1631 of the Act
It was also contended by the respondents that the petition was premature as the matter had still to be decided in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act
The learned Single Judge who heard the petition was of the view that the question whether the case came within the purview of section 1631 had to be determined after ascertainment of facts by the Income tax Officer and that therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground that it was a premature one
Accordingly he dismissed it without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case
Aggrieved by the decision of the Single Judge the appellants preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal holding inter 392 alia that from the facts disclosed before the Court it appeared that from May 31 1965 upto February 16 1970 there was business connection directly of indirectly through correspondence between the appellants firm and the non resident British counsel Mr Blanco White that it could not be said that there was no element of continuity and that the transaction was a solicitory and isolated one and that taking into account the surrounding circumstances and particularly the relationship between the Solicitors and a counsel an agency could very well be said to have been established between the appellants  firm and the non resident British counsel Mr Blanco White
The Division Bench further held that there was business connection between them and that it was not possible to accept the contentions of appellants that no income either accrued or arose to Mr Blanco White in India
The appeal was accordingly dismissed
On a certificate granted by the Division Bench under Article 133 of the Constitution the appellants have come up in appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
It should be stated here that alongwith the petition for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution the appellants filed an application before the High Court for stay of further proceedings before the Department
On that application the High Court passed an order on March 12 1973 stating that the order of stay already granted would continue subject to the following modification 1 The respondents will be at liberty to decide after giving the petitioners a hearing whether the petitioners firm should be treated as agent of Mr Blanco White under section 163 of the Income tax Act
1961 2 If they so decide the respondents will be at liberty to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act but will not take any further steps thereafter until the disposal of the application 3 The petitioners will also be at liberty to appeal from any order made under section 163 without prejudice to their contentions in the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court
We are informed that pursuant to the liberty given by the said order the Income tax Officer made an order on March 23 1977 treating the appellants  firm as the agent of Mr Blanco White under section 1631 of the Act and also on the same date issued a notice 393 under section 148 of the Act to the appellants to file a return of the income of Mr Blanco White
It is also stated that the appellants preferred an appeal against that order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without prejudice to the appellants  contentions in their appeal to this Court
Ultimately on November 30 1973 this Court made an order that the appellants might apply to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for an order of stay in respect of the question whether they were agents of Mr Blanco White and that at any rate even if the Income tax Officer were to proceed with the case he would make the assessment but would not make a final demand till the disposal of the appeal
It is further stated that pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act the appellants filed a nil  return
Thereafter we are informed that the Income tax Officer intimated the appellants on September 17 1977 that he had completed the assessment of Mr Blanco White for the assessment year 1970 71 treating the appellants  firm as the agent and that copies of the assessment order demand notice and challan would be forwarded to them after disposal of this appeal
It is necessary to refer at this stage to certain relevant facts of the case
The appellants were acting as the Solicitors of the German Corporation in India in the cases referred to above and the London
Solicitors were acting as its Solicitors in London
Suits Nos
511 and 1124 had been instituted in 1962 and suit No 422 in 1963
On May 31 1965 the London Solicitors sent a cable to the appellants which read as follows  Dignior Calcutta We act for Farewerke Hoechst this country and understand that you act India stop in connection acting infringement Indian Tolbutamide patent have been instructed to retain Blanco White as counsel to attend hearings Calcutta and Bombay stop Imperative to know dates of respective actions since counsel can only accept subject to other Commitments stop Please cable hearing dates if known or date when Information available stop our Ref Lcc
Ashursts London Col Blanco White REF LCC
 The above cable shows that the London Solicitors had sought information about the suits in Calcutta to enable them to engage Mr Blanco White to plead on behalf of the German Corporation in the said suits
On December 23 1969 the London Solicitors 394 wrote a letter to the appellants in which it was stated that the copies of certain documents sent by the appellants had been handed over to Mr Blanco White in addition to copies of certain other documents which they themselves had handed over to him
A part of the aforesaid letter which is relevant for the purpose of the present case is reproduced below 
We are asking Mr Divecha of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Limited Bombay to arrange for copies of the evidence in the Bombay case to be sent to you
The formulation of the evidence can then be discussed between you and your Counsel and Mr Blanco White when he arrives in Calcutta
The remaining documents which we are sending you are three bound volumes of pleadings which you sent to us in the early stages but which will no doubt be of use to you at the trial Mr Blanco White of course has copies of all the pleadings in the three cases
There are a number of points which Mr Blanco White has asked us to put to you for consideration and these are as follows 1
It is not entirely clear from the pleadings that Indian Patent No 66049 is a document in the Albert David case
Will you please consider whether this specification may have to be strictly proved  2
In the infringement action by Hoechst against Bengal Chemicals the defendants have objected there is no claim against the second and third dependants that is the inventors named in the Patent
Mr Blanco White sees no reason to pursue this point and subject to your views would suggest that it is abandoned
In the threats action by Bengal Chemicals again subject to your views Mr Blanco White would not propose to argue that Hoechst did not in fact threaten proceedings
Also in the threats action there is a point which we would mention here on which we are asking Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Limited of Bombay for information
Bengal Chemicals have said in their affidavits filed in the interlocutory proceedings in April 1962 that they stopped production of Tolbutamide because of the threats made by Hoechst
395 At the same time it appears that they published advertisements in the Punjab Medical Journal and the Indian Medical Journal of Ist May of that year
We are asking Hoechst Pharmaceuticals if they can say when these advertisements would have had to have been sent to those Journals for publication on that date
Mr Blanco White will be flying in Calcutta on BOAC Flight No 914 leaving London on Tuesday 20th January 1970 and arriving at 640 am local time on Wednesday 21st January
He would like to have preliminary discussion with you and counsel on matters of procedure etc
On Thursday morning and possibly Wednesday afternoon
We believe that the gentlemen from Hoechst Frankfurt plan to arrive in Calcutta on Thursday 22nd January so as to be available for more detailed talks starting on Friday
We are asking Hoechst Bombay to arrange for hotel accommodation for Mr Blanco White
 Then there is the letter dated January 8 1970 written by the London Solicitors to the appellants enclosing copies of the briefs which had been delivered by the London Solicitors to Mr Blanco White
The said suits came up for hearing on January 27 1970
The appellants had engaged Mr PP Ginwala Mr AK Basu and Mr Sankar Ghose to appear on behalf of the German Corporation in the said suits
In paragraph 6 of the writ petition filed before the High Court out of which this appeal arises the appellants have stated as follows On 27th January 1970 the said suits were called on before his Lordship the Hon ble Mr Justice KL Roy
It was decided to take up Suit No 1124 of 1962 first
In the said suit Mr Blanco White QC appeared with Mr PP Ginwala Mr AK Basu and Mr Sankar Ghose
The said suit No 1124 of 1962 was heard on 27th 28th 29th 30th January 1970 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
9th 12th 13th and 16th February 1970 and judgment was reserved
The other suits were adjourned until after the judgment
 In his letter dated March 21 1973 written to the London Solicitors marked as Annexure E  to the writ petition Mr Blanco White while attempting to make out a case supporting the appellants admitted that he was not disputing that when he was actually in 396 Court in Calcutta he was formally there on instructions from the appellants as attorneys
The relevant part of that letter reads Dear Mr Gane Farbwerke Hoechst vs Bengal Chemical
Certainly I can confirm that when I appeared before the Calcutta High Court in January and February 1970
I was briefed by your firm and not by Orr
Dignam  Co Accordingly whilst I would not dispute that when I was actually in Court in Calcutta I was formally there on instructions from Orr
Dignam as attorneys of record all arrangements relating to my fees were made with you as the English Solicitors of Hoechst in Germany and Orr
Dignam were at no time concerned with these arrangements Mr Blanco White left India on February 17 1970 without making any arrangement for the settlement of his liability under the Act
When the Income tax Officer issued the notice dated February 19 1970 to the appellants drawing their attention to the provisions contained in section 1952 of the Act and requesting them to furnish information regarding the income earned by Mr Blanco White by arguing the case before the Calcutta High Court on behalf of the German Corporation the appellants replied on February 24 1970 stating that the London Solicitors had engaged Mr Blanco White to appear on behalf of the German Corporation before the Calcutta High Court that the appellants had not briefed him nor did they know on what fees if any he had been engaged
In their letter dated March 1011 1970 to the notice dated February 17 1970 issued by the Income tax Officer to the appellants under section 1631 of the Act the appellants again stated that they had not engaged or delivered any brief to Mr Blanco White and that they had no business connection with him
It was urged before the High Court by the appellants that there was no sort of connection between the appellants and Mr Blanco White and even if there was any connection it was just a casual one and could in no case be termed as business connection that they had not undertaken to pay any fees to him for appearing in the suits and that therefore the appellants were not liable to be assessed
The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the appeal came to the conclusion that there was business connection between the appellants and Mr Blanco White that it could not be said that there was no element of continuity and the transaction was a stray or an isolated one and that the appellants were not entitled to the issue of the writ prayed for on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
397 For proper appreciation of the contentions advanced by the parties before us it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act
Section 1601i of the Act provides that in respect of the income of a non resident specified in sub section 1 of section 9 of the Act the agent of the non resident including a person who is treated as an agent under section 163 is a representative assessee
Section 161 1 of the Act stipulates that every representative assessee as regards the income in respect of which he is a representative assessee shall be subject to the same duties responsibilities and liabilities as if the income were income received by or accruing to or in favour of him beneficially and shall be liable to assessment in his own name in respect of that income but any such assessment shall be deemed to be made upon him in his representative capacity only and the tax shall subject to the other provisions contained in Chapter XV of the Act be levied upon and recovered from him in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person represented by him
Section 163 1b and c of the Act provides that for purposes of the Act any person in India who has any business connection with the non resident or from or through whom the non resident is in receipt of any income whether directly or indirectly can be treated as an agent of such nonresident
Section 52 of the Act inter alia provides that subject to the provisions of the Act the total income of any previous year of a person who is a non resident includes all income from whatever source derived which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year
The relevant part of section 91 of the Act reads 1 The following incomes shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India i all income accruing or arising whether directly or indirectly through or from any business connection in India or through or from any property in India or through of from any asset or source of income in India or through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India Explanation For the purposes of this clause a in case of a business of which all the operations are not carried out in India the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India 398 From the facts stated above it is seen that from the year 1965 there was correspondence between the appellants and the London Solicitors who in their turn had engaged Mr Blanco White in connection with the suits in question
It shows that there was a connection between the appellants and Mr Blanco White though it was an indirect one
After his arrival in India it must be assumed that the appellants had done all that was suggested in the letter of the London Solicitors dated December 23 1969
It is admitted that Mr Blanco White appeared with the Indian counsel engaged by the appellants and argued the case on behalf of the client of the appellants in the suit in which they were acting as solicitors
Even though the appellants did not hand over ally briefs directly to Mr Blanco White it is seen that part of the records handed over to Mr Blanco White by the London Solicitors consisted of the copies of records sent by the appellants to the London Solicitors
It is further seen that Mr Blanco White appeared before the High Court alongwith the Indian counsel engaged by the appellants though with the leave of the Court granted presumably under section 32 of the 
We are also of the view that there must have been discussion between the appellants and Mr Blanco White before the case was argued by him
Moreover Mr Blanco White could appear only with the consent of the appellants who were the Solicitors on record
In the circumstances it cannot be said that the High Court was wrong in holding that there was connection between the appellants and Mr Blanco White
The said connection cannot also be termed as a casual one having regard to the period over which it had existed
It was real and intimate and Mr Blanco White earned the fees for arguing the case in India only through the said connection
The case satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Income tax Punjab vs RD Aggarwal and Co and Anr
for holding that there was connection between the appellants and Mr Blanco White
The finding of the High Court on the above question also appears to be well founded The only remaining question which needs examination is whether the said connection was a business connection
The contention of the appellants is that a professional connection cannot amount to a business connection attracting section 91 of the Act
In support of this contention the appellants depend upon the definitions of the expressions business  and profession  found in 399 section 2 13 and section 236 of the Act
Section 213 of the Act reads business includes any trade commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade commerce or manufacture
Section 236 of the Act provides Profession includes vocation 
Section 14 of the Act which enumerates the heads of income which give rise to a liability to tax under the Act treats the income from profits and gains of business and profession as a single head
Sections 28 to 44B of the Act constitute the fascicule of provisions dealing generally with the computation of income from business and profession although not all those provisions are applicable to income from a profession
The definition of the expression business  given in the Act is an inclusive one
The expression business connection  however is not defined in the Act
It is manifest that the words in section 91 and section 163 are comprehensive enough to include all heads of income mentioned in section 14 of the Act
It is no doubt true that there is specific reference to business  in section 91 and there is no reference to profession 
But no tenable reason is discernible from the statute for excluding income arising out of profession from its scope
In this connection two submissions are made on behalf of the appellants 1 that it was the intention of the Parliament to exclude non residents engaged in learned professions from the operation of section 91 and that even if the intention of the Parliament was not to exclude such persons from section 91 since there is an omission to refer to them expressly the lacuna should not be made good by giving a wide interpretation to the expression business connection 
We do not find that there is any substance in the first submission
There could be no good reason for the Parliament for excluding non resident professional men from the purview of section 91 of the Act
There is no material on which we can reach that conclusion
In so far as the second submission is concerned we have to examine whether it would really amount to filling up a lacuna in the section if the expression business connection  is interpreted as including within its scope Professional Connection  also
400 In Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay vs Currimbhoy Ebrahim  Sons Ltd Sir George Rankin speaking for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council while construing the expression business connection  in section 421 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922 observed The phrase  business connection  is different from though doubtless not unrelated to the word business of which there is a definition in the Act 
The expression business  does not necessarily mean trade or manufacture only
It is being used as including within its scope professions vocations and callings from a fairly long time
The Shorter oxford English Dictionary defines business  as stated occupation profession or trade  and  a man of business  is defined as meaning an attorney  also
In view of the above dictionary meaning of the word business  it cannot be said that the definition of business given in section 45 of the Partnership Act 1890 53  54 Vict c 39 was an extended definition intended for the purpose of that Act only
Section 45 of that Act says The expression business includes every trade occupation or profession
Section 2b of the also defines  business thus  business includes every trade occupation and profession
The observation of Rowlatt J in Christopher Barker  Sons vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue
All professions are business but all businesses are not professions  also supports the view that professions are generally regarded as businesses
The same learned Judge in another case Commissioner of Inland Revenue vs Marine Steam Turbine Company Limited held The word business  however is also used in another and a very different sense as meaning an active occupation or profession continuously carried on and it is in this sense the word is used in the Act with which we are here concerned
 401 The word business is one of wide import and it means an A activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by the application of his labour or skill with a view to earning an income
We are of the view that in the context in which the expression business connection is used in section 9 1 of the Act there is no warrant for giving a restricted meaning to it excluding professional connections from its scope
There is very little substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants that since Mr Blanco White could not appear as counsel as of right either under the or under the Calcutta High Court original Side Rules he could not be treated as having any business connection with the appellants
As noticed earlier Mr Blanco White appeared alongwith the Indian counsel engaged by the appellants and the appellants continued to represent the German Corporation when Mr Blanco White argued the case before the High Court
It is difficult to hold that he was a stranger to the appellants
The appellants may not have engaged him to argue the case but they allowed him at the request of the London Solicitors to argue the case and willingly cooperated with him in doing so
That it was their case that Mr Blanco White argued cannot be denied
The appellants may not have undertaken to pay his fees but he could not have argued and earned the fees without associating himself with the appellants
The fact that Mr Blanco White being a barrister could not file a suit to recover the fees would not make any difference in this case as in the letter dated August 19 1980 written by the London Solicitors to the appellants which is produced before us it is stated that the fees of Mr Blanco White amounted to 2200 with refreshers at the rate of 220 per day
We need not go into the correctness of these figures but the fact remains that Mr Blanco White has earned income for the work done in India
We do not propose to go into question as to what would happen if no fees have been realised by him at all
In view of the foregoing we are of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court which is under appeal does not call for interference
In the result the appeal is dismissed
I he parties shall however bear their costs
VD K 
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants are partners of a firm of Solicitors at Calcutta and they had been engaged by a German Corporation to act on its behalf in three suits pending before the High Court at Calcutta
A firm of Solicitors in London namely Ms Ashurst Morris Crisp  Co which was also acting on behalf of the German Corporation instructed the appellants to retain Mr Blanco White QC a resident of the United Kingdom who was a barrister having considerable practice in the branch of patent law to argue the case in the aforesaid three suits
The appellants did not deliver any briefs to him and also did not pay or undertake any obligation to pay any fees for his services The briefs had been earlier delivered by the London Solicitors
Mr Blanco White left India on February 17 1970 after arguing the cases for 13 days commencing from January 27 1970 to February 16 1970 without making any arrangement regarding the payment of the Income Tax on the fees earned by him
The Income Tax Officer informed the appellants that he proposed to proceed against them under section 1631 of the Act treating them as the agents of Mr Blanco White on the ground that the income arising out of professional charges had arisen on account of the business connection that existed between the appellants and Mr Blanco White
Thereafter the appellants challenged the said order of the Income Tax Officer by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Calcutta
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that it was a premature one taking the view that the question whether the case came within the purview of section 1631 of the Act had to be determined after ascertainment of facts by the Income tax officer
The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by a Division Bench holding a there was business connection directly or indirectly through correspondence between the appellants  firm and their non resident British Counsel Mr Blanco White and that an agency could very well be said to have been established between them b there was business connection between them and c income did either accrue or arise to Mr Blanco White in India
However the Division Bench granted certificate to the appellants under Article 133 of the Constitution and hence the appeal
388 Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1
From the facts and other material on record there was connection between the appellants and Mr Blanco White
The said connection cannot also be termed as a casual one having regard to the period over which it had existed
It was real and intimate and Mr Blanco White earned the fees for arguing the case in India only through the said connection
From the year 1965 there was correspondence between the appellants and the London Solicitors who in their turn had engaged Mr Blanco White in connection with the suits in question Mr Blanco White appeared before the High Court along with Indian counsel engaged by the appellants though with the leave of the Court granted presumably under section 37 of the Advocates Act 1951
Mr Blanco White could appear only with the consent of the appellants who were the Solicitors on record
398 A F Commissioner of Income tax Punjab vs RD Aggarwal and Co and Anr  applied 
2 It is incorrect to suggest that it was the intention of the Parliament to exclude non residents engaged in learned professions from the operation of section 91
The words in section 91 and section 163 are comprehensive enough to include all heads of income mentioned in section 14 of the Act
393 D
The expression business does not necessarily mean trade or manufacture only it is being used as including within its scope professions vocations and callings from a fairly long time
From section 2b of the  it is clear that the business is one of wide import and it means an activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by the application of his labour or skill with a view to earning an income
In the context in which the expression business connection is used in section 91 of the Income Tax Act 1961 there is no warrant for giving a restricted meaning to it excluding professional connection from its scope
400 B D 401 A B Commissioner of income Tax Bombay vs Currimbhoy Ebrahim and Sons Ltd  Christopher Barker and Sons vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue at page 228 and Commissioner of Inland Revenue vs Marine Steam Turbine Company Limited  quoted with approval 
In the instant case a it cannot be said that since Mr Blanco White could not appear as counsel as of right either under the Advocates Act or under the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules he could not be treated as having any business connection with the appellants b since Mr Blanco White appeared along with the Indian counsel engaged by the appellants and the appellants continued to represent the German Corporation when Mr Blanco White argued the case before the High Court it cannot be said that Mr White was a stranger to the appellants c the appellants may not have engaged him to argue the case but they allowed him at the request of the London Solicitors to argue the case and willingly co operated with him in doing so d the appellants may not have undertaken to pay Mr White s fees but he could not have argued and earned the fees without associating himself with the appellants
The fact that Mr Blanco White being a barrister could not file a 389 suit to recover the fees would not make any difference and e that it is seen from the correspondence that Mr Blanco White has earned the fees amounting to Pounds 2200 with refreshers at the rate of Pounds 220 per day for the work done in India
Therefore
the appellants are liable to tax agents of Mr Blanco White under section 1531 of the Income Tax Act 1961
401 B E