9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Remittance of capital from Penang to Moulmein. 2. Assessment of income remitted from Moulmein to Puduvayal. 3. Inclusion of interest accrued on deposits in the names of the assessee's sister and daughter in computing profits. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Remittance of Capital from Penang to Moulmein: The first issue concerns whether the remittance of $80,500 from Penang to Moulmein on September 19, 1936, was a remittance of capital. The Income-tax authorities regarded this remittance as one of profits and assessed the assessee accordingly. The assessee argued that this sum represented the return of capital originally advanced to the branches at Klang and Penang. The Commissioner reviewed the evidence from the assessee's books of account and concluded that the sums sent to Klang and Penang in 1919 had been wiped out by 1926 due to losses, and it was impossible to identify any part of the original remittances. The Commissioner also noted that the profits earned at these places and invested in the business exceeded the initial capital. Therefore, the Commissioner opined that the assessee had not shown that the remittance represented the return of the original capital. The court upheld this view, stating that there were materials to support the Commissioner's conclusion. 2. Assessment of Income Remitted from Moulmein to Puduvayal: The second issue was whether the Income-tax Officer was entitled to assess the assessee on the sum of Rs. 13,247 remitted from Moulmein to Puduvayal in the year of account 1936-37. The assessee contended that the profits from the Moulmein branch, which was part of British India during the relevant period, had already been assessed in Burma and should not be assessed again in British India. The court referred to its earlier decision in Valliammai Achi's case, which held that income accruing in British India in the previous year is assessable even if the place of accrual ceased to be part of British India in the year of assessment. The court noted that Burma was a foreign state after April 1, 1937, and the assessment in Burma did not preclude the assessment in British India. The court answered this question in the affirmative. 3. Inclusion of Interest Accrued on Deposits: The third issue involved whether the interest accrued on deposits standing in the names of the assessee's sister Parvathi and daughter Sigappi should be included in computing the assessee's profits. The assessee claimed that the sums of Rs. 25,000 credited in their names were valid trusts and the interest should be allowed as a legitimate expense. The Income-tax authorities disallowed this claim, stating that no immediate gift or irrevocable trust was established. The court examined the will dated October 27, 1934, and a deed of declaration dated September 29, 1936, which the assessee relied on. The court found that no specific assets or funds were set apart for the purposes mentioned in the will, and the entire funds were used in the business. The court held that mere credit entries without allocation of specific assets do not constitute valid gifts or trusts. The court answered this question in the affirmative, supporting the Income-tax authorities' decision. Conclusion: The court upheld the findings of the Income-tax authorities on all three issues, concluding that: 1. The remittance from Penang to Moulmein was not shown to be a return of capital. 2. The assessee was liable to be assessed on the income remitted from Moulmein to Puduvayal. 3. The interest accrued on deposits in the names of the assessee's sister and daughter should be included in computing the assessee's profits.
|
