1982 (7) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding abatement in tax with reference to the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan.
2. Application of section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of confiscation of an asset.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The first issue involves determining whether the Pakistan income should be considered as determined and included in the Indian assessment under Indian laws or as assessed in Pakistan, for the purpose of abatement in tax. The court concluded that the Pakistan income should be taken as determined and included in the Indian assessment under Indian laws, based on the decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 560. This interpretation was applied for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1966-67.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertains to the application of section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case where an asset, in this instance a car, was confiscated by Customs authorities. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 24,390 under this provision, contending that the confiscation amounted to demolition or destruction of the asset. However, the claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) on the grounds that confiscation does not fall under the categories of "sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed" as per the provision. The Appellate Tribunal also ruled against the assessee, stating that confiscation does not fit within the scope of the provision. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that confiscation does not equate to destruction or demolition of an asset, and therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was not allowable under section 32(1)(iii).

In conclusion, the court answered the first question in favor of including Pakistan income in the Indian assessment under Indian laws. For the second question, the court ruled against the assessee, stating that the sum of Rs. 24,390 claimed as a deduction under section 32(1)(iii) for the confiscated car was not allowable. The judgment did not award any costs based on the facts and circumstances of the case.