Skip to content


S.V.M. Mahomed Jamaluddeen and Brothers Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad736; (1942)2MLJ620
AppellantS.V.M. Mahomed Jamaluddeen and Brothers
RespondentThe Commissioner of Income-tax
Excerpt:
- - the question referred will be answered in the affirmative and as the assessee has failed he must pay the costs, rs......on business in colombo in 1932. in the year 1937 it opened a branch at kilakarai in british india. business was carried on there and it was managed by a partner of the firm, who was resident at kilakarai. there were four partners, all of whom belonged to kilakarai.4. section 4-a (b) says that a firm is resident in british india unless the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly without british india. it has been found as a fact--and the finding is conclusive--that the business in kilakarai was managed by a partner there. therefore the control and management of the firm was not wholly without british india. that being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the indian income-tax act. section 4-a is a new section and the question here is governed by its terms......
Judgment:

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was 'resident' in British India under Section 4-A (6) of the Income-tax Act.

2. The Tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in British India and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion.

3. The firm commenced carrying on business in Colombo in 1932. In the year 1937 it opened a branch at Kilakarai in British India. Business was carried on there and it was managed by a partner of the firm, who was resident at Kilakarai. There were four partners, all of whom belonged to Kilakarai.

4. Section 4-A (b) says that a firm is resident in British India unless the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly without British India. It has been found as a fact--and the finding is conclusive--that the business in Kilakarai was managed by a partner there. Therefore the control and management of the firm was not wholly without British India. That being the case the firm is liable to be taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act. Section 4-A is a new section and the question here is governed by its terms. Before the Tribunal there was apparently much discussion of Clause (7) of the partnership deed which provides for the management of the firm in Colombo. We do not consider that this clause has any bearing on the question. What the Court has to consider is the question whether the firm was controlled and managed wholly outside British India, and it is obvious that it was not. The question referred will be answered in the affirmative and as the assessee has failed he must pay the costs, Rs. 250.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //