Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1960 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court came to an erroneous conclusion with regard to the true scope and effect of the third proviso to section 5 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947)?
Held that:- The appellant relies on the third proviso to section 5 of the Act in support of the contention that it excludes the Baroda business of the assessee and the losses of that business cannot be set off against the profits of the business in India, and the appellant can succeed only on establishing that the proviso clearly and without any ambiguity excludes the Baroda business. We agree with the High Court that if there is any ambiguity of language, the benefit of that ambiguity must be given to the assessee. However, the conclusion at which we have arrived is that on the language of the proviso as it stands, it does not exclude the Baroda business of the assessee but exempts only the income, profits or gains thereof unless they are received or deemed to be received in or brought into India. Accordingly, the High Court correctly answered the question of law referred to it. The appeal fails and is dismissed.