1966 (5) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u undivided family and not that of Seth Sobhagmal Lodha ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a previous year different from the Diwali year could be adopted in respect of the income from the managing agency commission and allowance subject to tax on (a) ' accrual basis ' and (b) ' receipt basis '? 3. Whether the amount said to have been received in British India in the previous year could be treated as income accruing or arising without British India in the same year and whether under section 4(1)(b)(iii) such amounts could be treated as assessable income for the assessment year ? and 4. Whether the sum of Rs. 2,19,150 was rightly treated as having been received by the assessee in British India within th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are that income in the form of dividends, commission and salary were earned by the assessee outside the taxable territories and were deposited in the Bharat Bank at Kotah again outside the taxable territories. The assessee was carrying on business with headquarters at Ajmer and with branches, inter alia, at Bombay and Kotah. At Kotah the business of the assessee included the work of treasurer of the Kotah State in addition to the business of discounting hundis. During the relevant previous year, the assessee was given a cheque for Rs. 2,19,150 by the Kotah State Darbar at Bombay for being encashed because the Kotab State Darbar had received a cheque for that amount from the Assistant Grains Officer, Bombay. Before we go on with further f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rbar was balanced. There was a credit in favour of the Kotah State Darbar in the Bombay branch of the assessee because the assessee had encashed the cheque at Bombay and there was thereafter a debit of an equal amount in the accounts at Kotah because that amount was paid at Kotah by the assessee to the Kotah State Darbar. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also found that the accounts in the Bharat Bank at Kotah were so maintained by the assessee that the assessee's income earned outside the taxable territories and received in Kotah was mixed up with other funds of the assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that this sum, which was paid to the Kotah State Darbar, was actually paid out of the income earned outside the taxable territ....