1935 (9) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Penang Firm at Penang to at Penang to a creditor of the Tinnevelly Firm can be treated as a remittance of foreign profits in British India. The question arises with reference to the inclusion in the additional assessments made upon the petitioner for the year 1932-33 (previous year 13-4-31 to 12-4-32) of this sum which is the amount paid by the petitioner Penang shop in respect of two hu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....question was received in British India in the year of account within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contends that it was not so received relying on the authority of the decision in Hall v. Marians (18 Tax Cases 148). That case is clearly distinguishable. In that case a lady who had overdrawn her account in the National Bank of India in London instructed that Bank....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the issue of a hundi drawn on the Penang shop. Discharge of a debt by issuing hundies is well-known in commercial circles as the discharge of a debt. In the circumstances of the case the debt remained an Indian debt and it was discharged by the issue of a hundi in India. What the petitioners did was to use in British India monies available to him Penang and this, in our opinion, amounts to a rec....