Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 252 1966 SLD 252 (1966) 61 ITR 632
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 158 OF 1963 (REFERENCE No. 40 OF 1963), JULY 13, 1965
VEERASWAMI AND VENKATADRI, JJ
V. Balasubrahmanyan for the Applicant. R. Venkataram for the
Respondent

Commissioner of INCOME TAX

v.

Indian Bank Ltd

Law:

Section:

Section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 49A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with rule 3 of the Income-tax (Double Taxation Relief) Indian States Rules 1939] - Double Taxation Relief - Where agreements exits - Assessment year 1947-48 - Assessee bank with his headquarters in Madras, carried on its business in erstwhile Travancore State - Assessee's claim for deduction representing interest payable by Travancore branches taken together to head office of assessee was rejected by authorities while making assessment - Whether notwithstanding refusal of claim for deduction amount in question was part of business profits made by Travancore branches and, therefore, assessee was entitled to relief in respect of entire amount of total income including disallowed amount of interest in Travancore State - Held, yes FACTS The assessee which was carrying on banking business, had its headquarters at Madras and a number of branches including at Travancore State. The amount returned for the assessment year 1947-48 included among other things the income of the Travancore branches. In Travancore the bank was separately assessed by the income-tax authorities in that state after declining a claim to deduction of Rs. 48,338 representing interest payable by the Travancore branches taken together to the head office of the assessee. The assessee in the circumstances applied for double income-tax relief in respect of the sum which included the sum of Rs. 48,338. The ITO gave the relief asked for, but limited to Rs. 1,74,496. On appeal, the AAC did not agree with him in so far as he had declined tax relief in respect of the sum of Rs. 48,338. The appellate authority was of the view that this sum too was qualified to the relief. The Tribunal, on appeal by the department accepted the view of the AAC and rejected the appeal. On reference : HELD For purposes of rule 3, what is meant by "any part" and "that part" is that there should be identity of the source and, also identity of income. Unless this test is satisfied the requirements of rule 3 are not fulfilled and no relief under the rule can be granted. The question therefore cannot be whether the part in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492