9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the point involved is the same. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 4485 of 2007. 3. Assessee-respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee' filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-1993 declaring income of Rs.4,30,06,580/- by showing its business as investment and finance, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (for short 'DTAA') entered into by the Government of India with the Government of Malayasia would override the provisions of the Act if they are at variance from the provisions of the Act. It was held that from a plain reading of Article XI of the DTAA, it was clear that dividend income would be taxed only in the contracting states where such income accrued. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the AO or before the CIT(Appeals) but was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and that too in an appeal filed by the Department. 4. Having dismissed the cross objection filed by the assessee, whether the Tribunal was justified in then proceeding to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merits in their favour." 7. On question No.1, the High Court, following the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be levied in the country where the income had accrued. Under these circumstances the Court held that this question as to whether income of an assessee accrued outside the country could be taxed within the country under the provisions of Section 5(1)(c) of the Act did not arise from the order of the Tribunal. 9. On question Nos.3 and 4, it was observed that this point had been raised by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) [2004] 267 ITR 654 and we are satisfied that the point involved in these appeals stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. SRM Firm & Ors.(supra) [1994] 208 ITR 400 which was duly affirmed by this Court in the case of CIT vs. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (supra)[2004] 267 ITR 654. Incidently, it may be mentioned th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
