9911796707
TMI Blog1938 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a rice mill at Wakema in Burma. Until 1930 he had also a money-lending business in Colombo. He was assessed in respect of his business at headquarters and on sums which were held to be remittances of profits from foreign business. Four questions are embodied in this reference, namely:- (1) Is there any evidence to support the rejection of the assessee's account books kept at his head-quarters in British India? (2) Is the assessee entitled in law to a deduction of ₹ 1,875 in respect of depreciation of machinery in the Wakema mill, he having leased the mill? (3) Is the Income-tax Officer entitled in law to treat the remittance of ₹ 81,834 as representing a remittance of profits from a foreign business? (4) Were there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the books of the firms abroad in which he was interested. He was not asked to produce the originals, nor was it suggested that the copies were in any way inaccurate. It comes to this, the books were rejected because they did not include entries relating to foreign business which would have been convenient for the Income-tax authorities when investigating the profits made abroad. In his statement referring this case to the court the Commissioner of Income-tax attempts to justify the rejection of the books under the provision of Section 13 of the Act. We have pointed out in another case to-day that Section 13 relates only to the method of accounting, and the books cannot be rejected merely because the method of accounting does not appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the 10th May 1934. The assessee closed his money-lending business in Colombo on the 31st May 1930, having made a profit there of $ 57,650. He then transferred this sum to Singapore, where he had carried on a money-lending business for several years previously in partnership with others. The original partnership in Singapore was wound up in 1930 and on the 8th August of that year the assessee entered into a new partnership there. To this new partnership he contributed three sums as his share of the capital namely.-(1) The $ 57,650, the profits which he had made in Colombo; (2) $ 51,047, the profits which he had received from the earlier partnership in Singapore, and (3) $ 16,000, being the amount of the capital he had invested in the earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittances of ₹ 15,000 and ₹ 20,000 do represent profits made in Singapore before the 12th April 1931. In fact he reversed a decision of the Income-tax Officer holding that these remittances represented profits made subsequent to that date. There is no difference whatever between these remittances and the remittance of ₹ 88,834 and if it was right as it undoubtedly was to treat the remittances of ₹ 15,000 and ₹ 20,000 as being remittances of old profits it follows that the remittance of ₹ 88,834 must be treated in the same way. On the evidence before the Income-tax Officer he was bound to hold that the ₹ 88,834 represented a remittance of profits made in Colombo. It is not a question of the discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
