9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (3) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It appears that in S.Y. 1999, which is the previous year for the assessment year 1944-45, the assessee shipped to Port Sudan to his foreign principal goods of the value of ₹ 16,65,708. In the course of the shipment goods of the value of ₹ 3,09,420 which were carried on S.S. Rehmani were totally lost as the ship was sunk. The Tribunal has determined the result of the business transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as having accrued in British India, and therefore according to him whereas the profit should have been apportioned under Section 42(3) the loss should not have been apportioned but the whole loss should have been treated as having taken place in the taxable territories. In our opinion, the approach made to this question by Mr. Narayan is not correct. The scheme of Section 42 is that the income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 the Tribunal were acting properly as required by Section 42(1). But having done so they took the view that the loss of ₹ 1,05,975 could not be apportioned under Section 42(3). The Tribunal has given no reason why the loss cannot be apportioned. Turning to Section 42(3) it is clear that when you find a business of which all the operations are not carried out in the taxable territories, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be so set off. Here also, with respect to the Tribunal, it is difficult to understand why Section 24(2) does not apply to the case of the assessee. Turning to Section 42(1), once the statutory agent is assessed to tax in respect of the income of the foreign principal, the statutory agent is to be deemed to be for all the purposes of this Act the assessee in respect of such income-tax. One of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
