<?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>1935 (9) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291583</link>
    <description>A sum paid at Penang by an assessee&#039;s shop to a creditor of an Indian firm was treated as a remittance of foreign profits received in British India under section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The transaction was not viewed as a mere foreign transfer of indebtedness; rather, the Indian debt was discharged by issuing hundies on the Penang shop, so in commercial substance it amounted to the use in British India of funds available outside India. The distinction from the cited foreign authority was that this involved discharge of an Indian debt by a hundi issued in India, not a simple book adjustment. The amount was therefore treated as remitted foreign profit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:04:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (9) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291583</link>
      <description>A sum paid at Penang by an assessee&#039;s shop to a creditor of an Indian firm was treated as a remittance of foreign profits received in British India under section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The transaction was not viewed as a mere foreign transfer of indebtedness; rather, the Indian debt was discharged by issuing hundies on the Penang shop, so in commercial substance it amounted to the use in British India of funds available outside India. The distinction from the cited foreign authority was that this involved discharge of an Indian debt by a hundi issued in India, not a simple book adjustment. The amount was therefore treated as remitted foreign profit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>