Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1937 (4) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the agent to lend out these moneys at interest in Saigon. In other words, she wanted to do through her agent in Saigon, a similar business to the business which she was doing at Bassein. The moneys, of course were received by the agent in Saigon in dollars. The agent obeyed these instructions and the loans made by him on behalf of the assessee earned in interest 25,813 dollars before the beginning of the financial year 1929-30; and in the three financial years 1929-30, 1930-31 and 1931-32 they earned 21,988 dollars. In 1931, the assessee decided to bring back most of her money from Saigon and in accordance with her instructions her agent remitted 25,000 dollars which, when received in Bassein in rupees amounted to Rs. 1,32,375. Only 5,500 d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are received in or brought into British India, be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India and to be the profits and gains of the year in which they are so received or brought, notwithstanding the fact that they did not accrue or arise in that year, provided that they are received or brought in within three years of the end of the year in which they accrued or arose. Therefore, the assessee is clearly liable to be taxed on the profits made in Saigon and brought into this country. But it is equally clear that the profits brought in did not amount to Rs. 23,252 as the Income tax authorities would have, but only to Rs. 1,637. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council pointed out in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal v. Shaw Wallace....