Taxability of remittances and property-sale gains turns on receipt of profits and ordinary-course business treatment.
A remittance from Ipoh to Madras was not taxable as the assessee's share of profits because the evidence showed it was treated in the firm's books as discharge of an inter-firm debt, and it was not proved to have reached him as ascertained profits received or brought into British India. By contrast, surplus realised on the sale of immovable properties acquired in satisfaction of debts was taxable business income, as the properties were dealt with in the ordinary course of the money-lending business and the gains were not mere capital accretions. The reference was therefore answered partly for the assessee and partly against him.
Issues: (i) Whether the sum of $30,000 remitted from Ipoh to Madras during the year of assessment was taxable in the hands of the assessee as his share of profits, rather than as a remittance in discharge of the Ipoh branch debt to the Madras firm; (ii) Whether the profits realised from the sale of immovable properties taken in satisfaction of debts due to the firm were income derived from the business or merely accretions of capital.
Issue (i): Whether the sum of $30,000 remitted from Ipoh to Madras during the year of assessment was taxable in the hands of the assessee as his share of profits, rather than as a remittance in discharge of the Ipoh branch debt to the Madras firm.
Analysis: Section 4(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 taxes profits and gains of business accruing outside British India only when they are received in or brought into British India. The remittances in question were entered in the firm's books as part of inter-firm accounting and were treated as discharge of the debt owed by the Ipoh firm. The letter relied upon did not establish that the remittance represented ascertained profits paid to the assessee personally or that the amount reached him as his individual share of profits during the accounting year.
Conclusion: The issue is answered in the negative. The $30,000 could not be treated as the assessee's taxable share of profits on the evidence before the authority.
Issue (ii): Whether the profits realised from the sale of immovable properties taken in satisfaction of debts due to the firm were income derived from the business or merely accretions of capital.
Analysis: The decisive question was the real course of dealing. Where properties are acquired in satisfaction of debts as part of the business practice and are resold for profit, the resulting surplus is not a mere capital accretion. The profits arose from transactions undertaken in the ordinary course of the money-lending business, and their character was analogous to profits realised by a pawnbroker on sale of pledged goods.
Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee. The profits from the sale of the properties were taxable business income.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly for the assessee and partly against him: the alleged $30,000 remittance was not taxable as his share of profits, but the gains from sale of properties were assessable as business profits.
Ratio Decidendi: For income-tax purposes, a remittance is taxable only when it is shown to be the assessee's profit received or brought into British India, and profits realised from the sale of properties acquired and disposed of in the ordinary course of a business are taxable business income rather than capital accretions.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
