Statutory suspension of ownership and foreign currency conversion govern tax treatment of evacuee property and business loss.

Ownership for section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depends on subsisting dominion or control, not merely abstract title. Where evacuee legislation vested property in a custodian and restricted the evacuee's powers, the Court treated ownership as statutorily suspended during the relevant years, so the former owner could not claim annual letting value or related deductions; that issue was decided against the assessee. By contrast, where business goods were purchased in Pakistan currency, the cost had to be translated into Indian currency at the official exchange rate to compute true profit or loss, so the business loss claim was upheld. The references were thus answered partly against and partly in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee continued to be the owner of the property for the purposes of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, despite vesting of evacuee property in the custodian under Pakistani law, and whether annual letting value and related interest deductions could be claimed. (ii) Whether the purchase price of goods bought in Pakistan currency had to be converted into Indian currency for computing business loss.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee continued to be the owner of the property for the purposes of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, despite vesting of evacuee property in the custodian under Pakistani law, and whether annual letting value and related interest deductions could be claimed.

Analysis: The meaning of "owner" in section 9 depended on the statutory context and not on an abstract jurisprudential notion of title. The Pakistani evacuee legislation vested the property in the custodian, restricted dealings by the evacuee, and contemplated restoration only at a later stage. The Court held that this amounted to a statutory suspension of the evacuee's ownership during the relevant years. Since the assessee was not in a position to exercise dominion or control so as to earn income from the property, it could not be treated as the owner for section 9 purposes. The provisions relating to evacuee property and the authorities dealing with vesting orders supported the conclusion that title remained in abeyance until restoration.

Conclusion: The answer was in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee was not the owner within section 9 and was not entitled to include the annual letting value or claim the related deductions.

Issue (ii): Whether the purchase price of goods bought in Pakistan currency had to be converted into Indian currency for computing business loss.

Analysis: The Tribunal had treated the transactions as business transactions and directed recomputation by converting the Pakistan currency purchase price into Indian rupees at the official rate of exchange. The Court accepted that, where purchases are made in foreign currency for business purposes, the cost must be translated into Indian currency to ascertain the real profit or loss. On that basis, the loss could not be rejected merely because the purchases were made in Pakistan currency.

Conclusion: The answer was in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The references were disposed of with the first two questions answered against the assessee and the third question answered in its favour, resulting in a mixed outcome on the tax consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, ownership requires subsisting dominion or control enabling the property to yield income; where title is placed in statutory suspension by evacuee legislation, the former owner is not the owner for tax purposes until restoration.

---