https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293358 Remittances made by a banker in the ordinary course of banking business from Indian States into British India were not, on the facts found, proved to be remittances of accumulated profits chargeable under section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Although a presumption that remittances represent profits may arise where profits accrued in an Indian State are sent into taxable territories, that presumption weakens where inflow and outflow are substantially equal. Money handled as part of banking business was treated as stock-in-trade, not capital, so the Department had to establish that the amounts were profits and not banking funds. That proof was not made, and the reference was answered in the negative. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Feb 2021 10:29:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293358 Remittances made by a banker in the ordinary course of banking business from Indian States into British India were not, on the facts found, proved to be remittances of accumulated profits chargeable under section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Although a presumption that remittances represent profits may arise where profits accrued in an Indian State are sent into taxable territories, that presumption weakens where inflow and outflow are substantially equal. Money handled as part of banking business was treated as stock-in-trade, not capital, so the Department had to establish that the amounts were profits and not banking funds. That proof was not made, and the reference was answered in the negative. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293358