Wallace Brothers & Co., Ltd. v. CIT, Bombay City & Bombay Suburban District
(1948) 50 BOMLR 482 • Easy classroom-style explainer
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)
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
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.
- Find Link: Big income stream from India.
- Fit Law: Ss. 3, 4, 4A, 64 enable charge.
- 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
Related Cases
CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co. (1946)
Source of IncomeEarly discussion on where income arises for tax purposes.
State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala (1957)
Territorial NexusConstitutional limits using nexus for regulatory reach.
Share
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now