<?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>1938 (11) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175605</link>
    <description>Section 42 fastened tax liability on profits or gains accruing to a non-resident through a business connection, while Section 43 operated only as machinery to appoint a statutory agent for assessment of income already chargeable under Section 42. The expression &quot;business connection&quot; required a continuing commercial relationship and not a single isolated transaction. On the facts, the agreement was not an outright sale but a licence arrangement with continuing obligations on both sides and the non-resident&#039;s entitlement to a share of takings. The assessee was therefore properly treated as agent of the non-resident company, and the profits were chargeable through that business connection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 1938 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2015 12:48:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1938 (11) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175605</link>
      <description>Section 42 fastened tax liability on profits or gains accruing to a non-resident through a business connection, while Section 43 operated only as machinery to appoint a statutory agent for assessment of income already chargeable under Section 42. The expression &quot;business connection&quot; required a continuing commercial relationship and not a single isolated transaction. On the facts, the agreement was not an outright sale but a licence arrangement with continuing obligations on both sides and the non-resident&#039;s entitlement to a share of takings. The assessee was therefore properly treated as agent of the non-resident company, and the profits were chargeable through that business connection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 1938 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>