https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277279 Remittances brought into British India by a resident during the accounting year were taxable under section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, even though the income had originally accrued when the assessee was a non-resident, because the decisive fact was receipt or remittance into British India during the relevant year. The court rejected reading into the provision a requirement that the assessee be resident when the income first arose, as that would add words not found in the section and overlap with section 4(1)(b)(ii). A business loss incurred in an Indian State could not be set off against the remitted amount, since the remittance was assessed as income from other sources and the statutory proviso barred such set-off. en-us Mon, 22 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:12:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277279 Remittances brought into British India by a resident during the accounting year were taxable under section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, even though the income had originally accrued when the assessee was a non-resident, because the decisive fact was receipt or remittance into British India during the relevant year. The court rejected reading into the provision a requirement that the assessee be resident when the income first arose, as that would add words not found in the section and overlap with section 4(1)(b)(ii). A business loss incurred in an Indian State could not be set off against the remitted amount, since the remittance was assessed as income from other sources and the statutory proviso barred such set-off. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277279