Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1986 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1986 (4) TMI 92 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 1(x) of the First Schedule to the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964.
2. Whether interest received from a non-resident bank's Indian branch qualifies as income from 'any Indian concern' under rule 1(x).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of rule 1(x) of the First Schedule:
The case involved the interpretation of rule 1(x) of the First Schedule to the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964. The assessee, a non-resident company, claimed a deduction of interest received from a U.S. bank's Delhi branch under rule 1(x). The dispute arose when the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected the claim on the grounds that the bank was not an 'Indian concern' as per the rule. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the department's appeal before the ITAT.

Issue 2: Qualification of interest from a non-resident bank's Indian branch:
The main contention was whether interest received from the Indian branch of a U.S. bank could be considered income from 'any Indian concern' as per rule 1(x). The assessee argued that the geographical location of the branch in India should suffice to classify it as an 'Indian concern.' However, the ITAT disagreed, emphasizing that 'Indian concern' implied a stronger relationship with India than mere location. The ITAT held that for a concern to be considered 'Indian,' substantial ownership, management, and control must be in India. Since the bank was a non-resident company with its incorporation outside India, having a branch in India did not qualify it as an 'Indian concern.' The ITAT cited the decision of the Madras High Court to support its interpretation.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the interpretation of rule 1(x) and the qualification of interest income from a non-resident bank's Indian branch. The ITAT's decision clarifies the criteria for determining an 'Indian concern' under the rule, emphasizing the significance of ownership, management, and control in India for classification purposes.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates