| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 393 1969 SLD 393 (1969) 72 ITR 356 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 202 OF 1964, dated March 12, 1968
VEERASWAMI AND RAMAPRASADA RAO, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAX CASE No. 202 OF 1964, dated March 12, 1968
VEERASWAMI AND RAMAPRASADA RAO, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
KV. AL. M. Ramanathan Chettiar
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT Veeraswami, J.-This common reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act relates to the assessment years 1953-54 to 1955-56. The assessee, one K.V. AL. M. Ramanathan Chettiar, who is now dead and succeeded by his legal representatives, was doing money-lending business in Malaya as well as in this country. It appears, he also owned rubber gardens in that foreign territory. The point in the reference turns on the proper application of section 49D of the Income-tax Act to the facts in each of the years. Three questions have been formulated for the first year and two common questions for the next two years. The first question as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise an order of refund made by the Income-tax Officer on his view of section 49D is not pressed by the assessee and it is, therefore, answered against him. The two other questions in that year are : "(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in its view that the order of refund under section 48 read with section 49D is independent and distinct from the assessment order? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming the computation of relief as modified by the Commissioner?" The two common questions for the last two years are much to the same effect. It may be seen that all these questions, as we said, revolve on the effect of section 49D on the facts. On a certain view of the section the Income-tax Officer gave double taxation relief which was not acceptable to the Commissioner of Income-tax who re-computed the relief which necessitated recovery of the excess relief that had been directed by the Income-tax Officer. To appreciate the point it is enough to notice the facts relevant to the first year. There is no dispute that the assessee made a foreign income of Rs. 2,22,532. He returned a business loss of Rs. 68,858 and an income of Rs. 39,142 under the head "Other sources" for purposes of the Indian income-tax. The Income-tax Officer allowed double taxation relief on a sum of Rs. 1,92,816. He arrived at this figure by adding the Indian income under the head "Other sources" to…
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