Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-This reference is made under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, by the Tribunal, Jaipur. It relates to asst. yr. 1986-87. The following questions have been referred to this Court for its decision “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that income from Sikkim State Lottery is taxable under the IT Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under Section 80TT is applicable on the net winning amount received by the assessee and not on the gross amount of the winning prize ?“ .2. Thefacts found by the Tribunal at that the assessee is a resident Indian citizen earning income from business and property, at Jaipur, Rajasthan. He won the first prize of Rs. 20 lakhs in the 287th bumper draw of the Sikkim State Lottery, held on 20th Feb., 1986 at Gangtok by the Director, State Lotteries, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, After having deducted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on account of payment of agent/seller’s commission, etc. & Anr. sum of Rs. 1,79,088 on account of income-tax, as per Sikkim State IT Laws, the Director of Lotteries paid the balance of Rs. 16,20,912 to the assessee through two demand drafts which were encashed at Jaipur. The assessee declared the net income of Rs. 8,21,375 claiming deduction under Section 80TT of the IT Act, 1961 on Rs. 20,00,000 i.e., the gross amount of the prize money. The ITO, however, allowed the deduction under Section 8OTT on Rs. 18 lakhs only. .3. On appeal, the CIT(A) agreed with the AO, and affirmed the assessment order in that regard. .4. Beforethe Tribunal, an additional ground was raised by the assessee which was permitted by the Tribunal that authorities below have grossly erred in law in treating lottery income of Sikkim Government as taxable income under the IT Act, 1961. .This contention had two aspects of the matter. Firstly, that the Sikkim was not originally a part of India when IT Act, 1961, was enacted. Leaving aside the historical background, which does not have much bearing on the present controversy, by 36th Constitutional Amendment Act, Sikkim was admitted into Union of India as a State and special provisions were made under Article 371-F relating to administration of territorial constituency of Sikkim. Leaving aside the historical background, which does not have much bearing on the present controversy, by 36th Constitutional Amendment Act, Sikkim was admitted into Union of India as a State and special provisions were made under Article 371-F relating to administration of territorial constituency of Sikkim. 5. It was contended that the combined reading of Clause (k) and (n) of Article 371-F have the effect that while as per Clause (k) all laws which were in force immediately before the appointed day in territories comprised in the State of Sikkim or any part thereof were to continue to be in force therein, until amended or repealed by competent legislature or other competent authority, as per Clause (n) the President could by public notification extend, with such restrictions or modifications as it thinks fit, to the State of Sikkim any enactment which is in force in a State in India at the date of notification. 6. On the anvil of the aforesaid provisions in the Constitution under Article 371-F, it was contended that when the lottery was announced and prize money was distributed, IT Act, 1961 was not applicable, a priori vigre to Sikkim State, which too was a part of India. Its operation in Sikkim needed that the President issued notification in exercise of his power under Clause (n) of Article 371-F. The notification extending the IT Act, 1961, to the Sikkini State had been issued only on 7th Nov., 1988 under Article 371-F(n) after the expiry of assessment year in question. By another notification dt. 23rd Feb., 1989, 1st April, 1989, was declared that IT Act, 1961, was to come into force in the State of Sikkim in relation to the previous year commencing on 1st April, 1989, which made provisions of IT Act, 1961 applicable to State of Sikkim w.e.f asst. yr. 1990-91. Thus, for the assessment year in question i.e., 1986-87, previous year relevant to which ended on 31st March, 1986 during which the asses see had won the lottery, the IT Act, 1961 was not extended to the State of Sikkim. Therefore, any income earned, accrued or received in Sikkim in previous year 1986-87 was beyond the charge of taxation under the Act of 1961. .7. Therefore, any income earned, accrued or received in Sikkim in previous year 1986-87 was beyond the charge of taxation under the Act of 1961. .7. Theother aspect of the above contention is that since in the territory of Sikkim, the IT laws as were applicable to the Sikkim before its becoming part of India, were continuing in force during the assessment year in question, by virtue of Article 376-F(k), the assessee had been subjected to tax on income from the winnings of lotteries under the Sikkim IT laws. The same income could not be subjected to tax under the IT Act, 1961, in the hands of the same assessee as it would amount to double taxation on same income accrued, arisen or received in India in the hands of the assessee. .8. The above controversy is subject-matter of question No. 1 referred to us. .9. Theother controversy which is referred to us vide question No. 2 is related to claim of assessee to deduction under Section 8OTT on the winnings of lottery. The assessee claimed deduction on the entire amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. The AO had allowed the deduction on the net amount of lottery after adjusting two lakhs paid by the Sikkim Government by way of commission to commission agents or other expenses before the amount was paid to the assessee. .Question No. 1 10. TheTribunal did not accept the contention of the assessee regarding its claim to non-exigibility of the winnings from lottery announced by the Sikkim Government and received by the assessee on either ground, to income-tax under the Act of 1961. 11. TheTribunal had found on facts that the assessee is an ordinary resident of India to whom the provisions of the Act of 1961 did unquestionably apply. Income from winning from lotteries was received in Jaipur in India during the year under consideration as the two demand drafts were encashed at Jaipur, which is situated in territory to which IT Act, 1961, extends. Income from winning from lotteries was received in Jaipur in India during the year under consideration as the two demand drafts were encashed at Jaipur, which is situated in territory to which IT Act, 1961, extends. Such income is to be included in the computation of total income for the assessment year under consideration as winning from lottery were not exempted under Chapter 3A of the Act and his case fell within the ambit of Section 5(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 which, inter alia, provides the total income of any previous year of a person, who is resident, included income from any source which has been received or deemed to have been received in India by or on behalf of such person. It held that under Section 5(1) of the IT Act, 1961, charge of tax net is wide enough to include all income received or deemed to be received, accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen to a person in India or outside India. 12. In the written submission made by the assessee, it has been stated that the amount was remitted to assessee at Jaipur by draft at the request of the asses see and it would not make any change that instead of paying cash, amount has been remitted by drafts and that drafts had been encashed at Jaipur. Since income in question had arisen in Sikkim, outside the operative field of IT Act, 1961, but within India, the income accruing or arising in India in territory beyond the applicability of Act of 1961, cannot be taxed on the basis of its place of accrual. .13. In thisconnection, it was also contended in the written submission that, had the amount received by cheque or cash by the assessee and were to be credited to his bank account at Gangtok and thereafter has been brought to India, the receipts of winnings were to be considered in Sikkim--a non-taxable territory. Raising this poser, it was contended that the mere receipt at Jaipur outside State of Sikkim would not make any difference. Any person whether residing in Indian State of Sikkim or Indian State of Rajasthan remains a citizen of India and amount received by resident of Sikkim is also received in India and by resident of India. Raising this poser, it was contended that the mere receipt at Jaipur outside State of Sikkim would not make any difference. Any person whether residing in Indian State of Sikkim or Indian State of Rajasthan remains a citizen of India and amount received by resident of Sikkim is also received in India and by resident of India. The upshot of Tribunal’s order is that under Section 5(1)(a) of the IT Act, while the resident of India residing in Sikkim receiving income in India (at Sikkim) will not be subjected to tax, but a person like assessee on receipt of same income in India (outside Sikkim) will be subjected to income-tax, on the like basis viz., receipt of income in India. The provision of IT Act ought not to be interpreted to bring about such a discriminatory .result. 14. Before coming to the core issue about the taxability of winning of Sikkim lottery announced in Sikkim under the IT Act, 1961, which had accrued and arisen in Sikkim, where the IT Act, 1961, was not extended, we may take other aspects of the first question, viz., whether the tax on winning of lottery is unsustainable on principle of double taxation. 15. So far as principle against double taxation is concerned, the issue raised by the assessee is founded on unsound premise. The principle is well settled that where the tax is imposed by two different legislatures under different enactments, the question of double taxation in stricto sensu does not arise. The question of double taxation may become of significance if under the same law, same income is taxed twice in the hands of same person through same passage. There is no inherent anathema to double taxation if the law prescribes it. 16. Theprinciple was stated clearly and unequivocally by the apex Court in Sri Krishna Das vs. Town Area Committee (1990) 183 ITR 401 (SC). It was a case where the same goods were subjected to levy of tax under U.P. ST Act as well as to fee under Municipalities Act. The contention was raised challenging the levy on the ground that it amounts to double taxation on the same subject-matter. The contention was repelled by the Allahabad High Court. It was a case where the same goods were subjected to levy of tax under U.P. ST Act as well as to fee under Municipalities Act. The contention was raised challenging the levy on the ground that it amounts to double taxation on the same subject-matter. The contention was repelled by the Allahabad High Court. Affirming the judgment of Allahabad High Court, the apex Court said: “To constitute double taxation, the two or more taxes must have been (1) levied on the same property or subject-matter, (2) by the same Government or authority (3) within the same taxing period, (4) for the same purpose. There is no double taxation, strictly speaking where (a) where the taxes are imposed by different States, (b) one of the impositions is not a tax, (c) one tax is against property and the other is not a property tax, or (d) the double taxation is indirect rather than direct.” On this premise, the Court further concluded: “Where more than one legislative authority, such as the State legislature and a local or municipal body, possess the power to levy a tax, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the same person or property being subject to both the State and municipal taxation or the same legislature exercising its power twice for different purposes.” In coming to this conclusion, the Court referred to observations made in its earlier decision in Avinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (1979) 1 SCR 845 , holding that “there is nothing in Article 265 of the Constitution from which one can spin out the constitutional vice called double taxation (bad economics may be good law and vice versa) Some undeserving contentions die hard, rather survive after death. The only epitaph we may inscribe is: rest in piece and don’t be rebornl If , on the same subject-matter, the legislature chooses to levy tax twice over, there is no inherent invalidity in the fiscal adventure save where other prohibitions exist.” The Court approved the decision of the Bombay High Court in Cantonment Board vs. Western India Theatres Ltd. AIR 1964 Bom 261. .17. The principle was accepted by the Supreme Court in Jain Bros. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC) that there can be double taxation because legislature has distinctly enacted it. .17. The principle was accepted by the Supreme Court in Jain Bros. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC) that there can be double taxation because legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted that they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax. The Constitution does not contain any prohibition against double taxation. .The principle was accepted in H.H. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur vs. Expenditure-tax Officer (1972) 83 ITR 92 (SC). .18. Again the principle was restated in Radhakishan Rathi vs. Addl. Collector & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 309 . Referring to the aforesaid three cases, the Court said: .“it is now well settled that the same subject-matter can be covered by the taxation nets imposed by different competent authorities, and there will be no double taxation involved in such cases.” .19. Since in the present case, the winning from lotteries are made subject to levy of income-tax in the territories of State of Sikkim under the laws made by the erstwhile Sikkim State which continued to remain in force under Article 371-F(k) and the levy of income-tax on winning of lotteries is also made under the IT Act, 1961, a law enacted by the Parliament, a different legislative authority by applying it within the territories to which the Act of 1961 extends, the charge and levy is imposed under two different authorities competent to enact such law on subject-matter in question, viz., tax on income of a person. The operation of two enactments within their respective field of operation by itself is not inflicted with vice of double taxation, so long as nexus between the subject-matter or the subject of enactment and the territory to which such law extends is discernible. .Therefore, the question of double taxation as ground to avoid taxation under either of them would not arise, if the same is otherwise eligible to tax under the charging provisions of the respective enactment. .20. The acceptance of contentions of the assessee on the anvil of double taxation would result in yielding to two different conclusions about exigibility of income in question to tax, not on the basis of applicability of law, but on the anvil whether the income in question was taxable in Sikkim or not. .20. The acceptance of contentions of the assessee on the anvil of double taxation would result in yielding to two different conclusions about exigibility of income in question to tax, not on the basis of applicability of law, but on the anvil whether the income in question was taxable in Sikkim or not. If the .winnings from lottery were not to be taxed in Sikkim State, on the principle of double taxation, the income will be exigible to tax under the IT Act, 1961. This result destroys the premise that IT Act, 1961, cannot have extra-territorial operation in respect of income accruing or arising in Sikkim, leaving apart the taxability on the basis of receipt. 21. The succour sought under Expln. 2 to Section 5 in this regard has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. Explanation 2 indicates that if an income has been taxed earlier on accrual basis in the hands of a person, the same person cannot be taxed again in respect of the same income on its receipt. In other words, a person can be taxed only once in respect of the income whether on accrual basis or on receipt basis. It has relevance with the method of accounting employed by the assessee viz., whether he maintains his accounts on mercantile basis, where income is accounted for as soon as it accrues to the assessee entitling him to receive it, though actual receipt may be later in time. The accounts may be maintained on cash basis also that is on the basis of actual receipt of income. However, in either case, the operation of Explanation becomes operative only if earlier assessment has taken place under the Act of 1961, and later assessment is also sought to be made under the Act of 1961. But where the assessments proceed under different enactments which are otherwise operative in respective areas, the occasion for invoking Expln. 2 to Section 5 does not arise. 22. The test for examining the exigibility to tax of any income, therefore, is not merely the factum of double taxation but the touchstone is extent and reach of the law imposing tax to the subject-matter and/or the subject of taxation. 23. 2 to Section 5 does not arise. 22. The test for examining the exigibility to tax of any income, therefore, is not merely the factum of double taxation but the touchstone is extent and reach of the law imposing tax to the subject-matter and/or the subject of taxation. 23. Thecore question, therefore, is whether in view of non obstante Article 371-F, the provisions of IT Act, 1961, can reach the income accrued or arisen or received in Sikkim, where the Act of 1961 was not extended during the relevant assessment year in question by virtue of constitutional provisions. 24. The relevant provisions of Constitution which needs notice at this stage are as under: Article 245. Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the legislatures of States--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. .(2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. .Article 371-F. Special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim--Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-(a)to(j) .(k) all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in the territories comprised in the State of Sikkim or any part thereof shall continue to be in force therein until amended or repealed by a competent legislature or other competent authority; .(1) .(m) .(n) the President may, by public notification, extend with such restrictions or modifications as he thinks fit to the State of Sikkim any enactment which is in force in a State in India at the date of the notification; .(o) .(p) 25. Section 1(2) of IT Act nw Article 371-F(k) and (n) has the effect that IT Act, 1961, enacted w.e.f 1st April, 1962, before Sikkim became a State of India, had territorial operation for whole of India. When Sikkim became a State of India w.e.f - 26th April, 1975 to take care of special circumstances emerging therefrom, Article 371-F was inserted in Constitution of India vide Constitution (36th) Amendment Act, 1975, w.e.f 26th April, 1975. When Sikkim became a State of India w.e.f - 26th April, 1975 to take care of special circumstances emerging therefrom, Article 371-F was inserted in Constitution of India vide Constitution (36th) Amendment Act, 1975, w.e.f 26th April, 1975. The combined effect of Clauses (h) and (n) was that laws in force in territories comprised in State of Sikkim immediately before 26th April, 1975 continued to remain in force in the said territory and until President by abovereferred notifications issued under Article 371-F(n) extended the IT Act, 1961 to Sikkim w.e.f asst. yr. 1990-91 relating to previous year commencing from 1st April, 1989, the Act of 1961 which was in force in all other States of India was not extended to State of Sikkim. Thus, the effect of these provisions was that IT Act, 1961, an enactment by Parliament w.e.f 26th April, 1975 was in force only in part of India and not in whole of India. Because every law made by any legislature is subject to provisions of the Constitution. We shall consider presently the operation of Act of 1961, at very inception had been extended to persons, things and acts outside its territory which has nexus within taxable territory. 26. Under Section 1(2) of the Act of 1961, which came into effect w.e.f 1st April, 1962, save as provided otherwise in the Act, has its operative territory, the whole of Union Territory of India. Section 4 is a charging section and provides for levy of income-tax for any assessment year in respect of total income of the previous year relevant thereto of every person. The object of the enactment is the levy of an income, the subject-matter of such levy is ‘total income’ of the previous year and subject of such levy is every person to whom such income belongs. What constitutes the ‘total income’ has been defined under Section 2(45) of the Act to mean total amount of income referred to in Section 5 computed in the manner laid down in the Act. What constitutes the ‘total income’ has been defined under Section 2(45) of the Act to mean total amount of income referred to in Section 5 computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Section 5 of the Act of 1961 which is captioned as “scope of total income” during the relevant period reads “subject to the provisions of the Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source derived which is .(a) received or deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person or; .(b) accrues or arises or is deemed to have accrued or arisen in India during such year; or .(c) accrues or arises or is deemed to have accrued or arisen to him outside India during such year Provided that in the case of a person, ‘not ordinarily a resident’ of India, the income which accrues or arises to him outside India shall not be so included unless it is derived from a business controlled in or protession set up in India. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 further provides the total income of any previous year of ‘a person who is a non-resident’ includes all income from whatever source derived which is received or is deemed to be received in India during such year by him or on behalf of such person or (b) accrues or arises or is deemed to have accrued or arisen to him in India during such year. 27. Bereft of other details, Section 5 qualifies the scope of total income of any previous year vis-a-vis, three classes of persons (i), the resident (2) a person not ordinarily resident in India; (3) a person who is a non-resident. 28. The scope of total income in respect of all the three classified persons vary to some extent, (i) In the case of resident, who does not fall in the category of resident, but not ordinarily resident of India as defined under Sub-section (6) of Section 6, the scope of total income is widest. 28. The scope of total income in respect of all the three classified persons vary to some extent, (i) In the case of resident, who does not fall in the category of resident, but not ordinarily resident of India as defined under Sub-section (6) of Section 6, the scope of total income is widest. In his case wherever the income accrues or arises to him, whether in India or outside India, as well as every income which is received or deemed to be received in India during the previous year is included in his total income to be computed for the purposes of tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961. 29. In the case of a resident but not ordinary resident of India, while the income which accrues or arises to him in India as well as any income which is received or deemed to be received in India by him in such year or on his behalf such income, which is liable to be taxed, is included in the total income of such assessee in its entirety. However, in respect of income which accrues or arises to any, not ordinarily resident of India, it is includible in his total income only, if it is derived from business controlled from or profession set up in India. Thus, unlike ordinary resident of India, a not ordinarily resident of India, he is not required to include the entire income which accrues or arises to him outside India unqualifiedly but only such part of income which accrues or arises to him from a business controlled or profession set up in India. However, if such income is received in India where IT Act extends, such income is still includible in income to be taxed under Section 5(1)(a). .30. Lastly, inthe case of non-resident, the income accruing or arising to him outside India, from whatever source, is not includible in his total income unless the same is received or deemed to be received by him or on his behalf in India under Section 5(1)(a). So far as income accruing or arising or deemed to be accruing or arising in India is concerned, he is equally liable for its inclusion in total income to be computed for taxable purpose’s under the Act. So far as income accruing or arising or deemed to be accruing or arising in India is concerned, he is equally liable for its inclusion in total income to be computed for taxable purpose’s under the Act. .In other words, income received or is deemed to be received in India whether it is accrued in India or outside India, is within the domain of the Act of 1961 to be included in the total income; if otherwise it is an income in the case of any person, whether (i) resident, or (ii) ordinarily resident but not ordinarily, or (iii) the non-resident. Likewise, any income from any source which accrues or arises or deemed to accrue or arise to him in India is to be included in the total income irrespective of whether it is received in India or not. But in the cases where income accrues or arises to any person outside india, whether to be included in total income, depends on the status of the person to whom such income accrues or arises. 2.31. Section 6 deals with the criterion for determining the status of a person resident but not ordinarily resident in India for any previous year for which income is to be assessed. Non-resident has been defined in Section 2(30) to mean a person who is not a resident and for the purposes of Sections 92, 93 and 168 (sic) includes a person who is not ordinarily resident within the meaning of Clause (6) of Section 6. .32. Theseprovisions relating to scope of ‘total income which is subject-matter of tax’ and the ‘status of person’ in respect of whose income, tax is to be levied, make the reach of IT Act, 1961, extra-territorial both in respect of subject-matter, i.e., total income to be taxed and the subject, i.e., person to be subjected to tax. It operates extra-territorial in respect of any income which accrues or arises outside operative territorial limit of the Act as well as in respect of person who resides outside the extent of the Act of 1961. It operates extra-territorial in respect of any income which accrues or arises outside operative territorial limit of the Act as well as in respect of person who resides outside the extent of the Act of 1961. Any income which accrues or arises to any person outside India, i.e., beyond the operative territory of the Act of 1961, is liable to be included within total income to be computed for the purpose of levy without qualification in the case of a resident and with certain qualification in the case of not ordinarily resident irrespective of the fact whether it .is received in taxable territory or not. In the case of non-resident also such income becomes taxable if it is received by him or on his behalf in India. 3.33. Likewise, the non-resident who does not have a residential connection with India and lives beyond the territory of India, has still been made subject to charge in respect of such income which accrues or arises to him in India or which is received by him in India. 4.34. Merely becausethe provisions of the Act operate on such subject-matter beyond its territorial operative field, it does not go beyond its reach nor does render it ineffective. A provision which has extra-territorial operation by itself is neither invalid nor ineffective. .35. In British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. vs. The King 1946 AC 527, Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada said: .“A legislature which passes a law having territorial operation may find that what it has enacted cannot be directly enforced but the Act is not invalid on that account and the Courts of its country must enforce law with the machinery available to them.” 5.36. Delineating legislative powers of Union and State, the Constitution of India envisaged under Article 245(1), that Parliament can make laws for whole or any part of India. Thus, law made by the Parliament may not necessarily extend to whole of India, but may be operative in some parts of India only. In such event, a law made for a part of India, if it affects any person or acts outside its territorial filed, in other part of India and the provisions of such law reaches it, it becomes a case of extra-territorial operation of law made by the Parliament. .37. In such event, a law made for a part of India, if it affects any person or acts outside its territorial filed, in other part of India and the provisions of such law reaches it, it becomes a case of extra-territorial operation of law made by the Parliament. .37. Article 245(2) declares that no law made by the Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. .Therefore, under the scheme of Constitution, a Parliamentary statute having extra-territorial operation cannot be ruled out from contemplation. The operation of law can extend to persons, things and acts outside the territory of India. The general principle suffering from the sovereignty of States is that law made by one State can have no operation in another State. The position emanating from Article 245(2) is that while it has not affected the legislative competency of making such law, it made certain difficulties in its enforcement, 6.38. ThePrivy Council in British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (supra), considering such difficulty had enunciated that it is enforceable within the territory in which it operates through machinery set up for such enforcement. 7.39. Theprinciple was approved by the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. (1990) 183 ITR 43 (SC). The Court said, approving the aforesaid ratio, that while the enforcement of law cannot be contemplated in a foreign State, it can nonetheless, be enforced by the Courts of the enacting State to the degree that is permissible with the machinery available to them. The law will not be regarded by such Courts as invalid on the ground of such extra-territoriality or ineffective. Further, stating the course in what manner, the Court can give effect to such provisions and how such provisions operate, was succinctly stated thus “It will now be noted that Article 245(1) empowers the Parliament to enact laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India. The provocation for the law must be found within India itself Such a law may have extra-territorial operation in order to subserve the object and that object must be related to something in India. It is inconceivable that a law should be made by Parliament in India which has no relationship with anything in India. The provocation for the law must be found within India itself Such a law may have extra-territorial operation in order to subserve the object and that object must be related to something in India. It is inconceivable that a law should be made by Parliament in India which has no relationship with anything in India. The only question then is whether the ingredients, in terms of impugned provision, indicate a nexus” Along with the aforesaid principle, one significant point is to be noticed that Article 245(1) makes it clear that law made by the Parliament can be either for the whole of India or may be for part of the territory of India, meaning thereby that any enactment made by the Parliament need not require to be extended necessarily to every part of Union Territory ot India. At the same time, the law made by any part of India may with reference to the subject-matter or subject can have by such enactment extra-territorial nexus beyond the operation of field of the Act, which may be falling within the operative territorial field. 1.40. If in the aforesaid light, we consider the extent of provisions of IT Act, 1961, which like any other enactments made by legislature in India, is subject to the provisions of the Constitution including Article 371-F. Article 371-F of the Constitution of India was inserted in our Constitution making a special provision with a non obstante clause as a consequence of Sikkim, an erstwhile independent nation, became a State of India. 41. We have noticed that IT Act, 1961 came into effect on 1st April, 1962 and extended to whole of India. At the time of its promulgation, Sikkim was not a part of India and the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 were not enforceable in Sikkim. Yet, in respect of any income which accrued or arose in Sikkim was, liable to be taxed under the Act of 1961, if either the subject or subject-matter of the Act had nexus with territories where the Act of 1961 was in force namely, if the person to whom such income had accrued or arisen in Sikkim was a resident in any State of India where the Act of 1961 was in force. Then, notwithstanding the income having arisen or accrued outside the territorial operation of the Act, it could be taxed in the hands of a resident Indian whether received in India or not received in India. Likewise, it the income which had arisen in Sikkim to any person who may not be resident of any State in India, but if such income is received in any State in India by him or on his behalf , it could be taxed as the subject-matter viz., the income when received or deemed to be received in India as envisaged under Section 6(1)(a) a nexus with taxable territory where the Act could be enforced was established. Such income becomes taxable in the hands of any person whether resident or nonresident or ordinarily resident. 2.42. There is no dispute that before Sikkim became a State of Union of India, the income in question which had accrued or arisen in Sikkim in the aforesaid circumstances, would have been subject to tax under the IT A