1938 (11) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a remittance out of the profits made by the assessee during the period from the 1st April 1932 to the 21st July 1933 and have assessed him to income-tax on this amount in respect of the year 1935-36. The assessee says that this remittance cannot be treated as a remittance out of the profits made during this period as the evidence clearly shows that it is not. The Commissioner of Income-tax having ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6,723.24 which amount was described as being "surplus capital". On the 10th September 1931 a sum of 10,738.75 guilders was credited to this account as being the assessees share of profits according to the old account. On the 19th September 1931 he was credited with 2,773.15 guilders and this amount was described as the assessees "share of bonus in the old account with interest thereon". The last c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... amount remained to his credit with the bank in Penang until August 1935 when he remitted it to Madras. It is this remittance which is now in question. This Court had held that when money is remitted from a business abroad where profits have been made there is a presumption that the remittance is a remittance out of the profits, but the presumption is a rebuttable one. The question which we hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment, have to make a refund. But in this case it is quite clear that the money which was remitted came from his personal account and the moneys standing in this account as profits represented moneys which had been received prior to the 1st April 1933. Treating the remittance to Penang as including the sum of 4,108.78 guilders standing to the credit of his account as salary the remittance cannot....