• Today: November 01, 2025

Wallace Brothers & Co., Ltd. v. CIT, Bombay City & Bombay Suburban District

01 November, 2025
1201
Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1948) – Territorial Nexus & Foreign Income Tax in India Explained

Wallace Brothers & Co., Ltd. v. CIT, Bombay City & Bombay Suburban District

(1948) 50 BOMLR 482 • Easy classroom-style explainer

Privy Council 1948 Judicial Committee 50 BOMLR 482 Tax & Constitutional 6–7 min
Author: Gulzar Hashmi  |  Location: India  |  Publish Date: 25 Oct 2025
Hero image for Wallace Brothers v CIT


Quick Summary

A UK company earned large income from Bombay. The tax department taxed it in India. The company said, “We are foreign—no Indian tax.”

The Privy Council said India can tax if there is a strong territorial nexus. Here, most income came from British India. So, tax was valid.

Issues

  • Foreign Company Tax Can a foreign company be taxed under Indian law?
  • Statutory Validity Are Sections 3, 4, 4A, 64 of the 1922 Act valid for taxing income earned outside British India?
  • Jurisdiction Did the assessing officer have the authority to make this assessment?

Rules

Under British and Indian practice, if there is a sufficient territorial connection between the taxpayer and the taxing country, that country may tax even foreign income.

This idea fits within “taxes on income” under the Government of India Act, 1935. The 1922 Income-tax Act provisions (ss. 3, 4, 4A, 64) operate within this power.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline for Wallace Brothers case
Company: Incorporated in the UK; control and management in the UK.
Business link: “Sleeping partner” in an Indian firm carrying on business in Bombay.
Income pattern: Income from British India exceeded overseas income.
Tax action: Assessment to income-tax and super-tax in British India.
Challenge: Company questioned power to tax foreign income and the officer’s jurisdiction.

Arguments

Appellant (Company)

  • We are a foreign company; most control is outside India.
  • Tax on income arising outside British India is invalid.
  • The officer lacked jurisdiction to assess us.

Respondent (CIT)

  • There is a strong territorial nexus with British India.
  • Sections 3, 4, 4A, 64 allow this assessment.
  • The officer had proper authority in the case.

Judgment

Judgment illustration

Held: Tax is valid. The Privy Council recognized the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus. Because a major part of the company’s income arose from British India, the link was strong.

Therefore, the statutory scheme as applied here was within power, and assessment by the officer stood.

Ratio

If there is a real and sufficient connection with India, tax can reach foreign income. The 1922 Act provisions operate validly when this nexus exists.

Why It Matters

  • Sets the foundation for taxing cross-border income tied to India.
  • Clarifies the reach of Income-tax Act, 1922 in pre-Constitution era.
  • Guides modern views on source-based taxation and nexus.

Key Takeaways

  • Territorial nexus can justify tax on foreign income.
  • Sections 3, 4, 4A, 64 worked validly in this case.
  • Foreign incorporation does not immunize income from Indian tax if ties are strong.
  • Officer’s jurisdiction sustained due to the nexus and statute.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “WALL-LINK-TAX”WALLace is foreign, LINK to India is strong, so TAX applies.

  1. Find Link: Big income stream from India.
  2. Fit Law: Ss. 3, 4, 4A, 64 enable charge.
  3. Final Tax: Nexus → assessment valid.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can India tax a foreign company’s income earned abroad when strong ties with India exist?

Rule

Territorial nexus doctrine; 1922 Act ss. 3, 4, 4A, 64 within power under 1935 Act.

Application

Major income arose from British India through Bombay partnership; real link proved.

Conclusion

Assessment sustained; tax valid against the company.

Glossary

Territorial Nexus
A real link between income, source, or activity and India that can justify taxation.
Section 4A (1922)
Tests for residence; helps decide when foreign entities fall within charge.
Jurisdiction
Legal power of a specific officer to assess tax in a case.

FAQs

No. There must be a sufficient nexus with India—like major earning activity or source in India.

Not if the income has strong links with India. Incorporation place is only one factor.

Sections 3, 4, 4A, and 64 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

A major part of the company’s income was derived from British India through its Bombay business link.

Yes. With nexus and statutory backing, the officer had jurisdiction to assess.
```

Comment

Nothing for now