11,272 8 8.
The order of the Income tax officer was companyfirmed on appeal but the Tribunal set aside the order on the ground that the income to the Japanese Company had accrued or arisen in Japan and companyld number be said to have been received by the Japanese Company in the taxable territories, since s. 4 1 a was subordinate to s. 4 1 c .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. The appellant is a firm at Gudur Andhra Pradesh , which was doing busines Mica under the name and style of the Continental Export and Import Company.
During the two account years, a total amount of Rs.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 21, 1956, of the former Andhra High Court in case Referred No.
January 16.
The High Court, however, granted a certificate, and these appeals have been filed.
These amounts included in the price of Mica exported were received by the assessee firm in India, but due to the restrictions imposed by the Exchange Control laws, they companyld number be sent to the Japanese Company The agreements between the assessee firm and the Japanese Company, therefore, provided for this companytingency by the inclusion of the following term In view of the difficulties in this companyntry it is requested that the first party credits all these amounts to the account of the second party with them without remitting the same until definite instructions are received by the first party.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
During the years of account the amount companymission due to the Japanese Company was respectively Rs.
26,254 9 1 and Rs.
50 of 1954.
Mica was number directly exportable to Japanese buyers during these years, as Japan was under military occupation, but to a State Organisation called Boeki Cho Board of Trade .
325 and 326 of 1960.
Two agreements were entered into by the assessee firm and the Japanese Company, the first for the quarter, July to September 1948, during which period a companymission of 4 per cent on the gross sale proceeds was payable to the Japanese Company, and the second, for an indefinite period, with the companymission reduced to 2 per cent.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
The Income tax authorities treated the assessee firm as the statutory agent of the Japanese Company, and assessed tax on the two amounts in the respective years of assessment.
Ganapathy Iyer, R. Thiagarajan and Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants.
During the years of account, 1948 49 and 1949 50 companyresponding to the assessment years, 1949 50 and 1950 51 , the assessee firm exported Mica to Japan.
The Japanese Company was admittedly a number resident Company.
To negotiate for order and to handle its other affairs in Japan in companynection therewith, the assessee firm engaged San Ei Trading Co. Ltd., Tokyo, as its agents.
13, 319 12 4 was paid to the Japanese Company either directly or through others, to whom the assessee firm was instructed by the Japanese Company to pay the amount.
