<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1936 (7) TMI 11 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168700</link>
    <description>Income can be taxed in the hands of a non-resident only where there is evidence that profits or gains actually accrued or arose in the relevant year through a continuing business connection; mere disbelief of the taxpayer&#039;s documents is not enough. On the facts described, the earlier loan arrangement had been replaced, payments moved through a different branch and basis, and the evidential gap could not be filled by a presumption of continuity, so the liability finding was unsupported. A separate refund direction was also unsustainable while a fresh assessment and related proceedings remained outstanding, because the court could not bypass the statutory assessment machinery or compel repayment on that footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:51:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (7) TMI 11 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168700</link>
      <description>Income can be taxed in the hands of a non-resident only where there is evidence that profits or gains actually accrued or arose in the relevant year through a continuing business connection; mere disbelief of the taxpayer&#039;s documents is not enough. On the facts described, the earlier loan arrangement had been replaced, payments moved through a different branch and basis, and the evidential gap could not be filled by a presumption of continuity, so the liability finding was unsupported. A separate refund direction was also unsustainable while a fresh assessment and related proceedings remained outstanding, because the court could not bypass the statutory assessment machinery or compel repayment on that footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>