High Court grants double income-tax relief under Indian law, orders Commissioner to cover costs

The High Court confirmed that the assessee was entitled to double income-tax relief under the Indian Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment years. The Court held that the same income had been subjected to both Indian and State income-tax, meeting the criteria for double taxation relief as per section 49A. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Competence of the reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
2. Entitlement of the assessee to double income-tax relief under section 49A of the Indian Income-tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Competence of the Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act

A preliminary contention was raised regarding the competence of the reference. The argument was that the application for reference under section 66(1) was beyond the limitation period and thus, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The order in appeal was passed by the Tribunal on 21st November 1960, and the copy of the order was served on the Commissioner on 1st December 1960. The application for reference was filed on 30th January 1961, which was argued to be beyond the 60-day limit, expiring on 29th January 1961.

However, it was held that the period allowed by section 66(1) for making an application for reference is 60 days commencing from the date on which the order of the Tribunal is served. By excluding the date of service (1st December 1960) in computing the period, the 60 days ended on 30th January 1961. Thus, the application was within time and properly entertained by the Tribunal.

2. Entitlement of the Assessee to Double Income-tax Relief under Section 49A of the Indian Income-tax Act

The core issue was whether the assessee was entitled to double income-tax relief under section 49A. The assessee, a banking concern with branches in erstwhile Indian States, had paid State income-tax on profits from its branches in Miraj, Sangli, and Kolhapur. Despite sustaining losses in its Bombay business, the total income was computed after setting off the loss under the head "business" against its income from "Investments and securities," on which Indian income-tax was paid.

The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for double income-tax relief, arguing that the Indian income-tax was paid on income from securities and dividends, while the State income-tax was paid on business income, which resulted in a loss. Therefore, the same income was not doubly taxed.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, allowed the relief, holding that the same part of the income had suffered tax under both the State and Indian income-tax laws, thus entitling the assessee to double taxation relief.

The High Court examined the provisions of section 49A and the relevant rules. It was determined that to be entitled to the relief, the same part of the income must have been subjected to tax and tax paid under both the Indian and State income-tax laws. The total income, as defined, is the total amount of income, profits, and gains computed under the Act, and tax is paid on this total income, not on individual heads of income.

The court concluded that the State income of Rs. 20,512, which was included in the computation of the total income under the Indian Income-tax Act, was part of the total income on which Indian income-tax was paid. Therefore, the same income had been subjected to both Indian and State income-tax, entitling the assessee to double taxation relief.

The court also referred to relevant English cases, including Assam Railways & Trading Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Rolls Royce Limited v. Short, to support its interpretation that the identity of the income for double taxation relief pertains to the total income and not to individual heads of income.

Conclusion

The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, confirming that the assessee was entitled to double income-tax relief under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment years in question. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.

---