9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,58,537 accrued to him in the former State of Gwalior and not in the then taxable - - - - - Dated:- 17-2-1969 - Judge(s) : P. V. DIXIT., G. P. SINGH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DIXIT C.J.-In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee the question that has been propounded by the Tribunal for deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled by the Bombay firm by selling the goods and buying the difference. On account of this settlement the assessee became entitled to receive from the Bombay firm an amount of Rs. 1,58,537. For payment of this amount by the Bombay firm the assessee drew hundies from time to time directing the firm of Premji Haridas Co. of Bombay to pay to Thakersey Murarji, a businessman said to be carrying on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him in the former State of Gwalior and not in the then taxable territories within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This claim was negatived by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal in the appeals which the assessee preferred. In our judgment, on the facts found by the Tribunal the question placed before us fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an assignment in favour of Thakersey Murarji of the funds in the hands of the drawee. It is well settled that a bill of exchange does not by itself create any obligation between the drawee and the bolder ; that if the drawee refuses to accept or to pay it on its due date, the holder cannot sue him for the amount and his remedy is only against the drawer and the prior endorsers ; but when once t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
