Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 538 1967 SLD 538 (1967) 66 ITR 209
Madras High Court
WRIT PETITION Nos. 1030 AND 1031 OF 1963, JANUARY 19, 1967
VEERASWAMI AND RAMAPRASADA RAO, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

O.A.P. Andiappan

v.

Commissioner of Income tax

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Veeraswami, J - These two petitions to quash two separate orders, one of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other of the Income-tax Officer, relating respectively to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, turn on the construction of article III of the Agreement for Relief from or Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Ceylon contained in Notification No. S.R.O. 456 dated February 6, 1957. The petitioner has been assessed as an individual resident and ordinarily resident in India on his only source of income from a grocery business carried on under the name and style of O.A. Paramasivam Pillai and Sons at 128, 4th Cross Street, Colombo. The income for the first year was determined in both the countries to be Rs. 39, 473 and for the next year Rs. 39,047. The Ceylon authorities who assessed the petitioner under the provisions of the Ceylon Income-tax Ordinance, 1932, certified the income-tax payable for the first year to be Rs. 5,919 and for the second year to be Rs. 5,249. The gross taxes arrived at in Colombo for the two years were respectively Rs. 9,889 and Rs. 9,718. Taxes certified were arrived at after deducting reliefs permissible under section 45(2) of the Ordinance. Identical incomes for the two years which accrued to the petitioner in Ceylon were assessed to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and for the first year the tax was Rs. 10,282 and for the second year Rs. 9,521. The petitioner was allowed abatement in respect of the two years equivalent to the tax certified by the Ceylon authorities for each of the years, the Income-tax Officer overruling his claim to abatement equivalent to the gross income-tax assessed in Ceylon for each of the years. In one of these cases, a the Commissioner declined to interfere. For the petitioner it is contended that, on a proper interpretation of article III in the Agreement, abatement should have been allowed for the years as claimed by him. The argument is that the amount of tax attributable to the excess assessed in either country within the meaning of the article relates to the gross tax without taking into account the relief under section 45(2) of the Ceylon Ordinance. We are unable…
🔒
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