Relief under section 25 requires prior taxation of the same business, not mere tax on investment interest.

Relief under section 25 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was available only if the same business, profession or vocation had in fact been charged to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1918. On the facts stated, the assessee had been assessed under the 1918 Act only on interest from investment of surplus capital, not on the railway business itself. Income taxed as "interest on securities" could not be recharacterised as business income merely because the investments were authorised or connected with the company's objects. As the railway business had not commenced during the relevant period, no tax had been charged on that business within section 25, and relief under section 25(3) or section 25(4) was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to relief under section 25(3) or section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the footing that tax had previously been charged on its business under the Income-tax Act, 1918.

Analysis: Relief under section 25 is available only where the business, profession or vocation on which the claim is founded had in fact been charged to tax as such under the earlier Act. The company had been assessed under the 1918 Act only on interest derived from investments of surplus capital, not on the business of working the railway. Income under the head "interest on securities" does not become business income merely because the company was authorised to invest its funds or because the investments were connected with its overall objects. The statutory heads of income are distinct, and income assessable under one head cannot be treated as income under another. Since the railway business itself had not yet commenced in the relevant period of assessment under the 1918 Act, no tax had been charged on that business within the meaning of section 25.

Conclusion: The claim for relief under section 25(3) or section 25(4) failed, and the question was answered against the assessee.

---