TMI Blog1935 (9) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be treated as a remittance of foreign profits in British India. The question arises with reference to the inclusion in the additional assessments made upon the petitioner for the year 1932-33 (previous year 13-4-31 to 12-4-32) of this sum which is the amount paid by the petitioner Penang shop in respect of two hundies drawn by him in the following circumstances. In or about July 1931 the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaning of section 4(2) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contends that it was not so received relying on the authority of the decision in Hall v. Marians (18 Tax Cases 148). That case is clearly distinguishable. In that case a lady who had overdrawn her account in the National Bank of India in London instructed that Bank to transfer the loan to her current account with its Colombo branch an th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suing hundies is well-known in commercial circles as the discharge of a debt. In the circumstances of the case the debt remained an Indian debt and it was discharged by the issue of a hundi in India. What the petitioners did was to use in British India monies available to him Penang and this, in our opinion, amounts to a receipt in India by the assessee of his gains outside British India. It was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|