Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1953 (7) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Katiawar 5,530-12-9 Jamila Bhai quot; quot; 5,485-10-6 Jubeda Bhai quot; quot; 5,485-10-6 Memuna Bhai quot; quot; 5,466-14-0 Total O.S. ₹ 21,968-15-9 No deduction of tax was made from the interest at the time of payment. I, therefore, direct that the assessee should pay the income-tax at the maximum rate on the above amount under Section 24(12) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act. Total amount: ₹ 21,96900 Income-tax thereon at the maximum rate of ₹ 0-3-0 in the rupee ₹ 4,119-0-0 Less: Exchange ₹ 588-7-0 Amount of tax payable in I.G. ₹ 3,530-9-0 This amount should be paid on or before 15th April, 1951. A challan is enclosed for this sum. It also appears from the statement of the case that while assessing the firm, the Income-tax Officer allo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll deductions for bad debts as provided in Section 10(2)(xi). Section 4(1)(a) has nothing to do with this basis of taxation. Again at pages 191-192 he observed:- The moneys were neither received by the company nor could be deemed to have been received by it when the entries were made in the books of account at Petlad. They had merely accrued or arisen to it...... It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court that in a mercantile system of accounts monies credited or debited to the account of any particular person cannot be deemed to have been either actually received or paid but only that the person in whose favour such credit or debit is made is deemed to have acquired a right to receive the monies, or had his right to receive the moneys extinguished by the debit. The question that arises in this case is when accounts are maintained on a mercantile system does the crediting of interest amounts to the accounts of the lenders be deemed to be a payment within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 24 (corresponding to Section 18 (3A) of the Indian Income-tax Act) so as to attract the provisions of Section 24(12) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act (corresponding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat no interest was paid to the non-resident entitled to receive the amounts or that there was no agent of the non-resident persons within the jurisdiction. The question which has now been referred to us, viz., whether the Income-tax authorities could assess the assessee for non-deduction of income-tax payable by a non-resident upon interest credited to him, is, however, quite different to the case where deduction of interest has been allowed under Section 12. The answer to this question will depend upon the provisions of Section 24(4). Section 24(4) which corresponds to Section 18(3A) of the Indian Income-tax Act in so far as it is relevant is as follows:- Any person responsible for paying to a person not resident in H.E.H. the Nizam's Dominions any interest not being 'interest on securities' or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall, at the time of payment, unless he is himself liable to pay income- tax thereon as an agent, deduct income-tax at the maximum rate. The opening words of the sub-section, viz., any person responsible for paying to a person non-resident would indicate the liability of the person to pay a certain sum to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no more paid than are other items of the total debt. Lord Russell of Killowen at page 353 observed:- All that has happened is that, because the interest has not in fact been paid, the creditor has added the amount of the unpaid interest to the debtor's principal indebtedness. In my opinion interest which is so dealt with cannot be interest 'paid to the bank'. This case was approved in the case of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Oswald [1945] A.C. 360; 13 I.T.R. (Suppl.) 39. There the question was whether the interest capitalised was deemed to have been paid for purposes of rule 21 of the General Rules applicable to Schedules A, B, C and E of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which is in the following words: Upon payment of any interest of money, annuity or other annual payment charged with tax under Schedule D, or of any royalty or other sum paid in respect of the user of a patent, not payable, or not wholly payable out of profits or gains brought into charge, the person by or through whom any such payment is made shall deduct thereout a sum representing the amount of the tax thereon at the rate of tax in force at the time of the payment. Lord Thankert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates