Judgment :- S RAMACHANDRA IYER C. J. These connected civil revision petitions which relate tot he assessment to tax by Corporation of Madras against the respondent company for six half years raise a common question as to the rate of tax payable. Godrej Soaps (Private) Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, whose head to principal office is not is the City of Madras. There is, however, a branch office of the company at Madras. In respect of the business done in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala State all moneys come to the Madras office and then they are transmitted to the head office at Bombay. In the matter of levy of the tax on companies, the Corporation of Madras sought to levy the the tax on the gross income derived by the Madras branch including therein income derived from the business done in Andhra Pradesh and kerala State which passed through the Madras branch office. Reversing the view taken by the Taxation Appeals Committee of the Corporation, the Chief Judge of the court of Small Causes, Madras, held that the respondent can be assessed to companies' tax only on the in come derived from the business done at Madras and not on the income arising or accruing form business done outside the city of Madras. Under section 110 of the City Municipal Act, tax is livable on companies transacting business within the city in any half year for not less than sixty days in the aggregate. The under the section would be assessed in accordance with rules in Schedule IV. Section 113 defines the expression "transacts business " in sections 110 and l11 by deeming it to include the doing of acts of business of whatever nature, whether isolated or not, such as soliciting, obtaining or transmitting orders, or buying making manufacturing , exporting, importing, receiving, transmitting or otherwise dealing with goods" * Schedule IV of the Act which contains the rules for assessment to tax provides in rule 7 for assessment on companies on a graded scale proportionate to their paid-up capital. That applies to companies whose principal or head office is in the City of Madras. SEction 110 provides that the tax levied will not in any event be higher than Rs. 1, 000 . That applies to companies whose principal or head office is in the City of Madras. SEction 110 provides that the tax levied will not in any event be higher than Rs. 1, 000 . The proviso to rule 7 relates to cases where the principal or head office of the company is not situate with in the city. That provides for a graded scale of tax in accordance with the gross income "received in or from the city." The only point for consideration in the present case is whether moneys received as result of transactions done outside the City of Madras by the company but in respect of which the gross income came into the city and were in due course transmitted to the head office at Bombay, would come with in the term "received nor from the city". In Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. Council of the Corporation of Madras 1, it was laid down that in order that a company can be said to be entitled to the benefits of the proviso to rule 7 of Schedule Iv, it must establish two things, namely, (1) that its head to principal office is not in the city, and (2) that its gross income received nor from the city in the relative year had not exceeded a particular sum. In the present case the first condition has been satisfied. The question then is whether the moneys received from the Kerala State and Andhra Pradesh could be said to be income received "in and from " the city. In Best ad Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Madras 2, the expression "gross income received in and from the city" in the proviso to rule 7 of Schedule IV were construed so as not to include income arising our of business transacted outside the City of Madras, albeit the proceeds of such business were transmitted to and received ny the agents of the incorporated company at Madras. In that case the company was incorporated in england. The income was received at Madras where the company had a branch office in respect of transactions done outside the city and they were regularly transmitted to england. In that case the company was incorporated in england. The income was received at Madras where the company had a branch office in respect of transactions done outside the city and they were regularly transmitted to england. The learned judges held that under section 110 it was necessary that the moneys should be received as a result of transacting business in the city and that income got from business done outside the city could not be held to be income received in the city. In the present case although the company can in a sense be deemed to carry on business with in the city in respect of business in the two stalls its head office being outside the city it would be entitled to claim the benefit of the proviso to rule 7 of Schedule IV. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order ofthe lower court is correct. These civil revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs, one set advocate feePetition dismmissed.