9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (3) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENT Chagla, CJ. This is one of those rare references which fortunately present no difficulty. The assessee was doing business of selling and exporting cotton and among the places it exported cotton to were Hongkong and Shanghai and it had dealings with the firm of K.S. Pavri & Sons at Hongkong. There was a consignment which was sent to K.S. Pavri and Sons and in respect of this consignment and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, are non-residents and Mr. Palkhivala has fairly conceded that it is not possible for him to dispute the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the sum of ₹ 1,16,000 was an income which accrued to the non-resident in the taxable territories. The only contention that has been put forward by Mr. Palkhivala is that, in view of section 42 of the Income-tax Act, the agent in Bombay, Pavri Son ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the assessee was responsible to pay ₹ 1,16,000 to a person who was not resident in the taxable territories; and the only way that Mr. Palkhivala has sought to get out of the ambit of this section is by pointing out that under certain letters written by the non-resident firm the assessee was asked to make payment to the Bombay firm and, therefore, his contention is that the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee firm was clearly liable under section 18(3A) to deduct the amount of income-tax, and not having done so, it is responsible for payment of the sum to the Department. Mr. Palkhivala concedes that the position under section 18(3C) with regard to super-tax is identical with the position with regard to payment of income-tax under section 18(3A). We, therefore, answer the question submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
