| Case ID |
d533412c-3ad8-4925-a215-a668a1ab2bf2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1954 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 21, 1954 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The High Court held that once money representing income, profits, or gains is brought into British India, the department is entitled to assess it to income-tax, even if it is not meant for retention or investment. The court emphasized that the purpose of bringing the money into British India is immaterial for taxation if the income originally accrued as profits. Thus, the remitted amount of Rs. 16,650 from the Sanawad shop to Upleta was included in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1944-45, as it was deemed to have been brought into British India. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Haji Mohammad Usman & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Nagpur High Court addressed the complexities of income tax assessment related to money brought into British India. The case revolved around the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court's decision clarified that the purpose for which income is brought into British India does not affect its taxability if it initially accrued as income. The ruling underscored the principle that once profits are transferred into British India, they are subject to taxation, regardless of the intention behind the transfer. This decision is pivotal for understanding tax obligations for income originating outside British India and significantly influences how income tax law is applied. The case is a crucial reference point for legal professionals dealing with cross-border income issues, highlighting the importance of statutory interpretation and the rigid application of tax laws over subjective intentions of the parties involved. |
| Court |
Nagpur High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SEN,
BHUTT
|
| Lawyers |
R.S. Dabir,
M. Adhikari
|
| Petitioners |
Haji Mohammad Usman & Sons
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1954 SLD 172,
(1954) 25 ITR 252
|
| Other Citations |
Board of Revenue v. Ripon Press [1923] ILR 46 Mad 706,
Lala Indra Sen, In re [1940] 8 ITR 187,
Partington v. Attorney-General [1869] LR 4 HL 100,
Pondicherry Railway Company, Limited v. CIT, Madras [1931] ILR 54 Mad 691,
Rai Bahadur Sundar Das v. Collector of Gujrat [1922] ILR 3 Lah 349,
Sir Saiyid Ali Imam v. The Crown [1925] ILR 4 Pat 210,
Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, West Bengal [1953] 23 ITR 152
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961,
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
5,
4(1),
14(2)
|