TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HEGDE, J.-- This is an appeal by certificate under section 66A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (in brief " the Act "), arising from the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1958 on its file. Therein two questions of law were referred to the High Court for its opinion. They are : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the amount of Rs. 3,43,138 received by the assessee was derived from a source or category of transaction mentioned in item 5(g) of the Schedule to the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of Income between India and Pakistan ? and (2) If the answer to the above, question be in the negative, then whether the aforesaid sum fell under item 9 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istan in 1947 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 49AA of the Act, section 11A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, and section 18A of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, as adapted. That agreement, to the extent material for our present purpose, reads thus : " Whereas the Government of the Dominion of India and the Government of the Dominion of Pakistan desire to conclude an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation of income chargeable in the two dominions in accordance with their respective laws : Now, therefore, the said two Governments do hereby agree as follows : ...... Article IV.--Each Dominion shall make -assessment in the ordinary way under its own laws; and, where either. Dominion under the operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es or arises Nil by the other. It appears from the statement of the case that the assessee earned Rs. 3,43,138 in Calcutta and Rs. 7,296 in Narayan Ganj (now in Pakistan) from out of the hire received from the Governments in respect of the boats chartered by them. The Income-tax Officer held that the amount of Rs. 3,43,138 so received was income earned in Indian Dominion and there fore liable to be brought to tax in this country. In so doing he applied the provisions of item 9 of the Schedule to the Agreement cement for Avoidance of Double-Taxation. According to the assessee its ase fell within item 5(g) and not item 9. The Income-tax Officer did not accept that contention. In appeal the Appellate Assistant -Commissioner agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
