9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made by P. D. Dinakaran, J, ) Heard. The appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench "A" dated 05.03.2001 in I.T.A.No.3236 /Mds/1992. 2.1. The assessee, is a company deriving income from Plantation situated in Malaysia. The assessee claimed the income from Malaysia as exempt and filed income for the assessment year 1989-90 on 29.12.1989 , showing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, and the Tribunal, following the decision of this Court in the case of SRM firm (208 ITR 400), held that the income form Malaysia cannot be taxed in India and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the income derived by the assessee from Malaysia can be included in the total income and taxed in India? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. Where tax liability is imposed by the Act, the agreement may be resorted to either for reducing the tax liability or altogether avoiding the tax liability. In case of any conflict between the provisions of the agreement and the Act, the provisions of the agreement would prevail over the Act in view of the provisions of Section 90(2). Section 90(2) makes it clear that " where the Central Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en his residence in India will become irrelevant, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement will have to be interpreted as such and would prevail over Sections 4 and 5 of the Act." 6. The said decision was followed by the Division Bench of this Court (N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN AND M.THANIKACHALAM, JJ.) in T.C.A.No.182 of 2 004 dated 15.6.2004. 7. In view of the above conclusion, we do not find any error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
