9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras High Court rendered in its advisory jurisdiction in a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". The appellant was a non-resident individual. During the previous year ending April 12, 1956, relevant to the assessment year 1956-57, he was a partner of a registered resident firm which carried on money-lending business in India and Malay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s total income his share of foreign income of the resident firm of Messrs. K. V. Al. Rm. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, is valid in law ? (2) Whether the levy of the tax at the maximum rate is correct ?" The High Court answered the questions referred against the assessee on the ground that the points were covered by its previous decision in Gnanam & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ean that this income arose wholly outside the taxable territories and had to be excluded by virtue of the operation of section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Under section 23(5) when the assessee is a registered firm and its income has been assessed the income-tax payable by itself shall be determined and the total income of each partner of the firm including therein his share of its profits and gains of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and when it was assessed and its total income computed the individual partners were taxed tinder section 23(5)(a) on their respective shares of the firm's income. The Privy Council in Seth Badri Das Daga v. Commissioner of Income-tax took the view that a non-resident partner of a resident firm was not entitled to exclude from his total income such proportionate share of the profits of the said f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
