9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, briefly, are that the assessee earned certain income outside India. However, as the assessee-company was resident in India within the meaning of the Act, its foreign income was liable to assessment in India as well. Such foreign income was included in the gross total income of the assessee. However, before computation of total income, the assessee was given deduction at the rate of 50 per cent on the foreign income in accordance with the provisions of section 80-O. As the same income had also been subjected to tax outside India, the assessee claimed double taxation relief in respect of the entire taxes paid overseas. The Assessing Officer however held the view that the relief under section 91 claimed by the assessee was required to be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 5847/Bom./91, it is seen that there is no discussion in this respect in the Tribunal order and it therefore appears that the Department did not prefer appeal on this issue against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1987-88. However, each year being independent unit of assessment and there being no res judicata the right of the Department to agitate this issue for assessment year 1988-89 cannot be whittled down. The learned DR relying on the order of the Assessing Officer in this behalf, argued on merits that as only 50 per cent of foreign income suffered tax in India it was only fair and reasonable to allow the assessee deduction of only 50% of the taxes paid by it in the foreign country on such inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajasthan High Court, following their earlier judgment in the case of CIT v. R.N. Jhanji [1990] 185 ITR 586 held that only remaining 50 per cent was doubly taxed and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to double taxation relief of 50 per cent of tax deducted at source in foreign country under section 91 read with section 80RRA. 13. Coming now to the judgment in case of K.V.AL.M Ramanathan Chettiar, the assessee, a resident in India, was doing money-lending business in Malaya as well as in India. For the assessment year 1953-54 the assessee's income in Malaya was Rs.2,22,532 whereas in India the assessee had incurred a business loss of Rs.68,858 and he had income from other sources of Rs.39,142. The Income-tax Officer added the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome under the Act and not the same income under an identical head of income under the Act. The income from each head under section 6 is not under the Act subjected to tax separately, unless the Legislature has used words to indicate a comparison of similar incomes but it is the total income which is computed and assessed as such, in respect of which tax relief is given for the inclusion of the foreign income on which tax had been paid according to the law in force in that country. The scheme of the Act is that although income is classified under different heads and the income under each head is separately computed in accordance with the provisions dealing with that particular head of income, the income which is the subject-matter of tax und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
