Remittances from an outside business are not presumed profits as a matter of law; the issue depends on facts.

A remittance received in British India from an out-of-State business may raise a prima facie inference that it represents profits, but that inference is not a rule of law and depends on the surrounding facts. The text further explains that whether the receipt is to be treated as profits or capital is ordinarily a question of fact, open to rebuttal by the assessee on the material of the case. It also notes that a party cannot raise a new challenge to the sufficiency of the profit figure where that point was not put in issue before the Tribunal or covered by the proposed questions for reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to have the proposed questions stated as questions of law, and whether the receipt in British India of remittances from an out-of-State business gave rise to a presumption, rebuttable on facts, that the sums represented profits chargeable to tax.

Analysis: The claim that the entire profit figure was unsupported by evidence was not allowed to be raised, as it had not been put in issue before the Tribunal and did not arise from the questions proposed for reference. The only substantial controversy was whether the sum received in British India should be treated as including the profits earned in the Jubbal business. The governing authorities were read as establishing that such treatment depends on the facts of each case. A remittance received in British India from a business carried on outside British India may raise a prima facie inference that it represents profits, but that inference is not a presumption of law. Its existence and strength depend on the surrounding circumstances, and it remains open to the assessee to rebut it.

Conclusion: The proposed reference did not disclose a question of law warranting interference, and the remittance issue was one of fact on which the Tribunal's conclusion could stand. The assessee was not entitled to the reference sought.

Final Conclusion: The rule failed and the revenue succeeded on the ground that the remittance-to-profits inference was factual and no referable question of law arose on the material placed before the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether remittances received from an outside business represent profits or capital is ordinarily a question of fact, and any presumption that they are profits is rebuttable and dependent on the circumstances of the particular case.

---