Spencer, J.
[1] This appellant was enjoying an annuity in Mysore Province, instalments of which were remitted by her agent to her while she was resident in British India.
[2] We agree with the Subordinate Judge that these remittances were "income" under Part IV of schedule II of the Income-Tax Act (Act II of 1886).
[3] It is argued that after collection by the agent, the money ceased to be income, that the act of the agent in receiving the money in Mysore was tantamount to an act of the principal, and that having once been received in Mysore, it could not again be received in British India when the agent sent it on to his principal. "Income" means "what comes in"--a definition which will clearly embrace sums derived from a source like this; and it is incontestable that in this case these sums were "received in British India" within the definition in Section 3, Clause (5) of the Income-Tax Act (Act II of 1886), and were therefore taxable.
[4] This second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Narasammal v. Secretary Of State For India In Council Represented By The Collector Of Trichinopoly
Narasammal v. Secretary Of State For India In Council Represented By The Collector Of Trichinopoly
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Second Appeal No. 1617 Of 1914 | 28-09-1915
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SPENCER
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PHILLIPS
Eq Citations
- (1916) ILR 39 MAD 885
- 31 IND. CAS. 404
- AIR 1916 MAD 675 1
- LQ/MadHC/1915/437
Head Note
A. Income Tax — Income — Income received by agent and remitted to principal — Applicability of S. 3(5) of Income Tax Act, 1886 (26 of 1886) — Annuity received by appellant in Mysore Province remitted by her agent to her while she was resident in British India — Held, remittances were income under Part IV of Sch. II of Income Tax Act, 1886 — Income Tax Act, 1886, S. 3(5)
