Issue
Arguments Of Petitioner
Decision
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
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.
[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.
Advocates List
For the Appellant K. Bhashyam Iyengar (with Messrs. C.S. Venkatachariar, N.C. Vijayaraghava Chariar, Advocates. For the Respondents C. Madhavan Nair, Government Pleader.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SPENCER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PHILLIPS
Eq Citation
(1916) ILR 39 MAD 885
31 IND. CAS. 404
AIR 1916 MAD 675 1
LQ/MadHC/1915/437
HeadNote
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)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
