TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake in the Income tax Officer's order granting relief under section 91 in respect of Rs. 14,98,034 which could be rectified under section 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ?" The facts admitted and/or found by the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax the said sum of Rs. 1,17,77, 286 as business profit earned by the assessee as an authorised dealer in foreign exchange. The aforesaid devaluation profit included an aggregate sum of Rs. 28,56,666 in respect of Kuala Lumpur and Penang branches of the assessee-bank. In this reference, we are only concerned with the devaluation profit of Rs. 28,56,666 arising in the Kuala Lumpur and Penang bran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Officer took the view that since Rs. 9,24,494 is less than Rs. 14,98,034 as assessed in Malaysia, the D. I. T. relief can only be granted with reference to the said sum of Rs. 9,24,494. According to the Incometax Officer, it was clearly a mistake apparent from the record. On appeal by the assessee, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and later the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24,484. No debate is necessary to come to this finding. Double taxation relief under section 91 can be allowed only in respect of that part of the income which has been doubly taxed in this country as well as overseas. Since what can be said to have been doubly taxed in this case is only Rs. 9,24,484, double taxation relief was wrongly allowed by the Income-tax Officer originally with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
