9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the appellant is not entitled to any more abatement than what was given by the authorities under the " Agreement for Relief from or Avoidance of Double Taxation in India and Ceylon " which will be hereinafter referred to as the " agreement ". It, accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions but gave a certificate under article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India certifying that this is a fit case for appeal to this court. The appellant is a resident in this country. But he is carrying on business in Ceylon. During the assessment year 1959-60 he earned a gross income of Rs. 39,473 and in the assessment year 1960-61 he earned a gross income of Rs. 39,007. He had only a house in India whose annual rental value was Rs. 38. The entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of the agreement entered into between India and Ceylon. He does not dispute the fact that but for the agreement the assessee would have been liable to pay in this country a tax of Rs. 10,282.62 in the assessment year 1959-60 and Rs. 9,521.35 in the assessment year 1960-61 In order to consider the correctness of the contentions advanced by Mr. Ramachandran, we will now turn to the relevant provisions of the agreement. That agreement was notified in Notification No. S.R.O. 456 dated the 6th February, 1957. The portion of the notification which is relevant for our present purposes is contained in article 3 and column 8 of the Schedule to that agreement. Article 3 reads : " Each country shall make assessment in the ordinary way under i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny income from the sources or categories of transactions specified in column I of the Schedule to this Agreement .... in excess of the amount calculated according to the percentages specified in columns II and III thereof, that country shall allow an abatement equal to the lower of the amounts of tax attributable to such excess in either country." The language employed in this part of the article is quite confusing. That part of the article has to be read with the Schedule. On a proper reading of that provision along with the Schedule, which means in the present case, item 8 of the Schedule, it appears to us that what it says is : From out of the amount ascertained under the first part of the article deduct the tax payable by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng exemptions and allowances. If so read, it is quite clear that the amount of tax attributable to the Ceylonese law is that which was ultimately levied on the assessee. The agreement that was entered into between India and Pakistan is similar in terms with the agreement with which we are concerned in these appeals, except that in article 4 therein, which corresponds to article 3 in the agreement before us, in the place of the word " attributable ", the word " payable " is used. But this change does not make any difference in substance. Interpreting that agreement, this court, in Ramesh R. Saraiya v. Commissioner of Income-tax held that article IV of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation clearly shows that each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
