9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of certain provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922-1939. 2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Certain Provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922-1939: The appellant company challenged the validity of the provisions of Sections 4A(c) and 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922-1939, which included income arising outside British India in the total income for tax assessment. The appellant argued that this legislation, having an extra-territorial operation, was ultra vires the Central Indian Legislature. The judgment clarified that the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act were Sections 3, 4, 4A, and 64. The court focused on whether the charging section (Section 3) was effective in law when applied to companies that met the statutory definition of residence, as it included income arising outside British India. The court determined that the charging section imposes a tax on the income of the "previous year," not the year of assessment, and that the liability to tax arises by virtue of the charging section alone. The fact of residence or non-residence of a company is established by the close of the previous year. The court stated that the power to legislate on taxes on income under the Government of India Act, 1935, includes the power to tax income with a sufficient territorial connection. The court concluded that deriving the major part of its income from British India gives a company a sufficient territorial connection to justify taxation on its total income, including income from outside British India. 2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Make the Assessment: The appellant contended that the assessment was not made by the proper officer under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant argued that since it took no active part in the partnership business, it did not carry on business at the partnership place of business, and thus, the Additional Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Bombay, lacked jurisdiction. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the essence of partnership is that each partner is an agent of the others for carrying on the partnership business. The failure of any partner to take part in the management does not mean they are not carrying on business as a partner. Therefore, the Additional Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to make the assessment. Conclusion: The court answered all four questions in favor of the respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay District. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant company was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. Appeal Dismissed.
|
