TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the remittance of Rs. 1,47,750 was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under section 9 or under section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not treating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in India shall be regarded as income earned in India." Mr. Joshi submitted that the Explanation specifically stated that for the removal of doubts, it was declared that income of the nature referred to in that clause payable for service rendered in India should be regarded as income earned in India. Inasmuch as the Explanation was "clarificatory" in nature and for the purpose of "removal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be said to be merely declaratory and it cannot apply to a period anterior to April 1, 1979. This court in CIT v. S. G. Pgnatale [1980] 124 ITR 391, held before the insertion of the Explanation by the Finance Act, 1983, that the words "earned in India" in section 9(1)(ii) must mean "arising or accruing in India". If the income does not accrue in India, clause (ii) would not apply even though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of the Explanation was only to clarify and settle the controversy. The Explanation was to have effect only from April 1, 1979. We are, therefore, of the view that the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be considered to be declaratory nor can it apply to any period anterior to April 1, 1979." We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Kerala. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
