TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o wrong and illegal and could not be upheld ? " The assessee is a company. The reference relates to the assessment year 1947-48. At the time of completing the original assessment no double I.T. relief was allowed on account of income which had suffered tax both in India and in other countries. Subsequently, by an order dated January 31, 1950, double I.T. relief was given for income doubly assessed both in Ceylon and in India. On August 6, 1951, double I.T. relief was given in the U.K. and in India. The assessee's claim for abatement under the Agreement for avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan was not finalised. The assessee made such a claim in 1950. By an order dated September 15, 1964, the ITO rejected the said cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, consequently, the net amount of relief due to the assessee as a result of the comprehensive working of the Pakistan Abatement and Double Income-tax Relief." Mr. B. L. Pal, learned counsel for the Revenue, argues before us and, in our opinion, rightly, that the main question for our consideration is whether any decision of the ITO on the claim of the assessee regarding the abatement under the above agreement calls for " a comprehensive working of the Pakistan Abatement and Double Income-tax Relief " as observed by the Commissioner. This question, takes us immediately to the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation with Pakistan. Under art. IV of the Agreement each Dominion shall make assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produces the certificate of the assessment in Pakistan is (a) to determine the abatement allowable on the basis of the Pakistan assessment, and (b) then to adjust the uncollected portion of the demand against the abatement allowable under the agreement. On a plain reading of art. IV and art. VI(b) of the aforesaid agreement there is no scope for introducing, in the abatement, any matter relating to the allowance of double I.T. relief on the U.K. income, regarding either the amount of income on which the said relief was allowable or the rate of relief applicable thereto. The ITO therefore, in our opinion, erred in taking into account such matters in his order dated September 9, 1965, by which he allowed refund of Rs. 8,00,000 more or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
