Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Hind Commission Agents on 17 August, 1962 cites

Board Of Revenue vs Ramanadhan Chetty Minor By Guardian ... on 1 October, 1919

In Board of Revenue, Madras v. Ramanadhan Chetty it was held that "a resident in British India owning a money-lending business carried on for him outside British India by agents resident there, who merely keeps himself acquainted with the progress of the business and occasionally issues general instructions, is not liable to be taxed under the Act where the income from such business is not remitted to British India." It was held in that case that the mere conduct of occasionally issuing general instructions to the agents outside British India would not have the effect of making the business one which was carried on in British India. The case was dealing with the question of situs of business. Mr. Joshi, however, has relied on the said case for the limited purpose of showing that mere issuing of instructions would not constitute a business activity. According to him, in the present case, the activity of the assessee is even much lesser and does not extend to even issuing of instructions to the sub-agents or the brokers. We do not think that the decision cited by Mr. Joshi is an authority for the proposition that where a person is not actively concerned with the carrying on of business himself but gets it done entirely and wholly through his servants and agents without even exercising least control over them, could not be said to be carrying on business. The decision in the case referred to by Mr. Joshi was in the context of the circumstances that the business was entirely carried out in places outside British India and the only connection of that business on the basis of which the business was said to have been carried on within British India was the instructions issued by the principal who was in India to his agents, and it was held that mere issue of occasional instructions emanating from within British India was not sufficient to shift the situs of the business from where it was actually carried on to British India. The question in that case was not whether the assessee was carrying on any business at all but the question was where that business was carried on, whether in India or outside. None of the decisions referred to by Mr. Joshi therefore helps him and our conclusion is in view of what we have already discussed above that the assessee firm was engaged in business and the income received by it was income from business under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1