9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (6) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold in Burma were all manufactured in India but were sent to Burma for sale. The invoice prices of these goods corresponded with their prices in India and included the manufacturing profits in India and also part of the merchanting profits. The difference between the invoice price and the sale price in Burma were shown as profit accruing.or arising in Burma. In the assessee's Indian assessment, the Income-tax Officer accepted the assessee's method of accounting. He computed the sum of Rs. 9,688 as the assessee's loss in Burma for the assessment year 1949-50. But, the appropriate authorities in Burma, in the assessee's Burma assessment, for the assessment year 1949-50, assessed the assessee's income in Burma at Rs. 91,548. The Burmese auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring profits which arose in India ; but as the Burma authorities assessed this sum as the assessee's Burma income it must be held to have been assessed both in India and in Burma and the assessee was entitled to double taxation relief under section 49D. The Tribunal held that for the purpose of determining the amount of doubly taxed income under section 49D it was the amount of the foreign income as computed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act that had to be considered. The Tribunal said that for the assessment year 1949-50, the Indian authorities had computed a business loss of Rs. 9,688 in Burma and territories. From the statement of the case as well as the orders of the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a part of the business the profits derived from sales in Bombay could not be said to have accrued or arisen in that State. The Supreme Court has held that the activity which the assessee carried OD at Raichur was a part of its business within the meaning of the third proviso to section 5, that the profits of a part of the business, viz., the manufacture of oil in their mills at Raichur accrued or arose at Raichur and that such profits were not assessable to excess profits tax under the third proviso to section 5. The Bench consisted of six learned judges of the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Kania. Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court was concerned in this case with whether manufacturing profits were chargeable under section 5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was nothing done from which they could accrue or arise as natural accrual or as an increase. The increase only took place at the place of manufacture and if there was any arcrual over the production cost, that accrual was at the place of the production itself. At page 515 Mr. Justice Bijan Kumar Mukherjea observes : " .... in proviso (3) to section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the legislature has deliberately left out the word ' received ' and has spoken only of ' accruing ' or ' arising '. This shows that the legislature had in mind cases where profits could accrue to parts of a business before they were actually received. When a raw material is worked up into a new product by process of manufacture, it obviously increases in value ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. This case has been decided by four learned judges of the Supreme Court. The assessee was a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. It had its registered office in London. It manufactured yarn and cloth in its mill at Pondicherry. The assessee had appointed a company in Madras as its agent. The manufactured goods were sold partly in British India and partly outside British India. All the contracts in respect of the sales in British India were entered into in British India and deliveries were made, and payments were received in British India. In regard to sales outside British India also, payments in respect of such sales were received in Madras through the said agent. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se or accrue. " Again, at page 49, Mr. Justice Bhagwati states : " . . . the apportionment of income, profits or gains between those arising from business operations carried on in the taxable territories and those arising from business operations carried on without the taxable territories is based not on the applicability of section 42(3) of the Act but on general principles of apportionment of income, profits or gains. " Applying the above principles to the facts which the tax authorities have found in the present reference it seems to us that the sum of Rs. 91,548 may have been assessed, in the assessment year 1949-50, both in India and Burma but this sum cannot be said to be " income arising without the taxable territories " within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
