9911796707
TMI Blog1938 (11) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st April 1932 to the 21st July 1933 and have assessed him to income-tax on this amount in respect of the year 1935-36. The assessee says that this remittance cannot be treated as a remittance out of the profits made during this period as the evidence clearly shows that it is not. The Commissioner of Income-tax having refused to state a case, he was directed to do so under the provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 931 a sum of 10,738.75 guilders was credited to this account as being the assessees share of profits according to the old account. On the 19th September 1931 he was credited with 2,773.15 guilders and this amount was described as the assessees share of bonus in the old account with interest thereon . The last credit entry in the account is dated the 2nd August 1932, when a sum of 4,108.72 guilder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed it to Madras. It is this remittance which is now in question. This Court had held that when money is remitted from a business abroad where profits have been made there is a presumption that the remittance is a remittance out of the profits, but the presumption is a rebuttable one. The question which we have to decide here is whether the presumption has been rebutted. The Income-tax authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s remitted came from his personal account and the moneys standing in this account as profits represented moneys which had been received prior to the 1st April 1933. Treating the remittance to Penang as including the sum of 4,108.78 guilders standing to the credit of his account as salary the remittance cannot be treated as a remittance of taxable profits even to this extent. The proviso to sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
