TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (10) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be received in British India, in the year of account, by or on behalf of the assessee company within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal, is the appellant, and the Bhopal Textiles Ltd., Bhopal, is the respondent. For the assessment year 1944-45, the company which was non-resident was treated as " resident and ordinarily resident " under section 4(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. In the year of account, it had supplied its manufactured articles either to the Government of India or its nominees at Agra, Allahabad and Delhi. Under the orders of the Government, the goods were sent direct to the persons nominated, who made the payment against the goods. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....habad and Delhi acted as the agents of the buyers when they collected the money from them and transmitted it to the Bhopal branch. In this view, the profits cannot be said to be received by the assessee company in British India. It received the money only when it reached the Bhopal branch as a credit to its own account and that was not in British India at the material time. " The case was not decided by the Tribunal on the basis of accrual of the income, profits or gains to the company. It was decided on the fact of actual receipt, whether it was in British India or in Bhopal, which was then outside the taxable territories. We need not, therefore, concern ourselves with the problem whether property in the goods could be said to have passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany. The company had handed over the railway receipts to the bank, and asked the bank not to hand over the railway receipts to the buyers, unless payment was received. This was sufficient to make the bank an agent of the company. The buyers could not have countermanded the instructions given by the company to the bank, which they would, indubitably, have been able to do, if the bank was their agent. This was laid down by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. M. Rathod and Co. Mr. Veda Vyasa contends that the case is distinguishable on the ground that the railway receipts there were "to self," whereas here the railway receipts were made out in the name of the consignee. Nothing turns upon this distinction. The document of title to ....