DCIT v. T. Jayachandran ( 2018) 406 ITR 1/ 165 DTR 176/302 CTR 95 / 255 Taxman 344 (SC) , www.itatonline.org/HDFC Bank Ltd; CIT v. ( 2018) 165 DTR 176 /302 CTR 95 / 255 Taxman 344 (SC) State Bank of India; CIT v. ( 2018) 165 DTR 176/302 CTR 95 / 255 Taxman 344 (SC) Indian Bank ; CIT v. ( 2018) 165 DTR 176/302 CTR 95/ 255 Taxman 344 (SC) Editorial: T. Jayachandran v. Dy.CIT ( 2013) 263 CTR 629/ 87 DTR 73 /212 Taxman 620 ( Mad) (HC)

S.4: Income chargeable to tax – Diversion of income by overriding title- Acted only broker -For determination of taxable income , written agreement is not relevant, conduct of parties can be considered accordingly only income that has actually accrued to the assessee is taxable. [ S. 5,145 ]

Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ;The income that has actually accrued to the Respondent is taxable. What income has really occurred to be decided, not by reference to physical receipt of income, but by the receipt of income in reality. Given the fact that the Respondent had acted only as a broker and could not claim any ownership on the sum of Rs. 14,73,91,000/- and that the receipt of money was only for the purpose of taking demand drafts for the payment of the differential interest payable by Indian Bank and that the Respondent had actually handed over the said money to the Bank itself, we have no hesitation in holding that the Respondent held the said amount in trust to be paid to the public sector units on behalf of the Indian Bank based on prior understanding reached with the bank at the time of sale of securities and, hence, the said sum of Rs. 14,73,91,000/- cannot be termed as the income of the Respondent. In view of the above discussion, the decision rendered by the High Court requires no interference( CA. No.4341 of 2018, dt. 24.04.2018)(AY. 1991-92 to 1993-94)