TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1941 (8) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India for sale. Nobody can say what profits they earn till the timber is sold in India. In the accounting year they sent timber valued at ₹ 11,09,512 to India for sale and the excess over that figure at which it might be sold would be a profit. Hence the respondents computed the commission they would receive upon sales and reached a notional figure which was accepted by the Commissioner. After allowing for losses in connection with the business in Rangoon as opposed to profits in Moulmein, and for depreciation, the sum of ₹ 10,150 was arrived at. The question is whether in addition to this sum they received other profits from British India. What they received from British India was a sum of ₹ 10,02,450. It is perfectly tru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Burma; what they received in British Burma is less than their costs. The business in Burma no longer has the timber nor has it received the full value of the timber much less any profits connected with its sale. The Commissioner appears to recognize in para 7, Annexure B, that the remittances do not cover the value of the timber exporter and that there is no apparent reason why profits arising from other sources should be brought to Burma. In Scottish Provident Institution v. Allan [1903] 4 Tax Cas. 591, Lord Chancellor Halsbury said: "This is a large amount of profit which has been made, a large amount which, out of profits, has been remitted to this country. It that is true, then income-tax is payable upon it. If that is not the ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers in Burma did not get any profits from India; they received some part before there could be a remittance of some part of the profits the amount remitted would have to exceed the admitted price of the commodity sold. This question must therefore be answered in the negative. The Commissioner must pay the costs of this reference; Advocate's fee 15 gold mohurs; and the respondent is entitled to the refund of his deposit. DUNKLEY, J.--I agree. At the end of para 6 of his order in revision, from which this reference arises, the Commissioner of Income-tax said in regard to the present case: "There is no question of drawing any inference from facts, much less of entering the domain of presumption, in determining the character or the p....