https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290956 A remittance from Ipoh to Madras was not taxable as the assessee's share of profits because the evidence showed it was treated in the firm's books as discharge of an inter-firm debt, and it was not proved to have reached him as ascertained profits received or brought into British India. By contrast, surplus realised on the sale of immovable properties acquired in satisfaction of debts was taxable business income, as the properties were dealt with in the ordinary course of the money-lending business and the gains were not mere capital accretions. The reference was therefore answered partly for the assessee and partly against him. en-us Fri, 11 Oct 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:50:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290956 A remittance from Ipoh to Madras was not taxable as the assessee's share of profits because the evidence showed it was treated in the firm's books as discharge of an inter-firm debt, and it was not proved to have reached him as ascertained profits received or brought into British India. By contrast, surplus realised on the sale of immovable properties acquired in satisfaction of debts was taxable business income, as the properties were dealt with in the ordinary course of the money-lending business and the gains were not mere capital accretions. The reference was therefore answered partly for the assessee and partly against him. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Oct 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290956