9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted in surtax assessment." 3. The appellant is a non-resident shipping company having its head office in Sweden under section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') the amounts referred to clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (2) thereof are to be taxed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) thereof. For the assessment years under consideration, i.e., 1977-78 to 1979-80 it filed surtax returns disclosing chargeable profits at Rs. 10,04,610, Rs. 7,50,009 and Rs. 8,01,757 respectively and claimed statutory deductions at Rs. 1,47,66,367, Rs. 1,21,87,040 and Rs. 1,30,19,523 respectively. The assessee-company claimed that it incurred loss on non-Indian operations and as such the entire world capital of the company should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained in accordance with rules 1, 2 and 3, diminished by an amount which bears to that sum the same proportion as the amount of the aforesaid income, profits and gains bears to the total amount of its income, profits and gains." 6. From the above, it is apparent that rule 4 laying down the computation of capital comes into play only 'where a part of the income, profits and gains of a company is not includible in its total income as computed under the Income-tax Act.' Rule 4 shall, therefore, not come into play when this condition, namely, a part of the income, profits and gains of a company is not includible in its total income as computed under the Act is not fulfilled. Sections 44B was introduced with effect from 1-4-1976. By this, sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion worse than that in which it was before filing of the appeal. We are not impressed by this argument for the following two reasons. Firstly, it has not been shown to our satisfaction that by our order the revenue will be in a more disadvantageous position than that it was in before filing of the appeal. Secondly, according to the decision of the Supreme Court it is our duty to correct all the errors in the proceeding under appeal. This is evident from the following principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451: "... It is well known that an appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
