TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the expression "more reliable data" in rule 8 of the Schedule to the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was confined to the higher of the two computations under rules 2(a) and 2(b); (ii) whether the separate actuarial valuation statement for the Indian business constituted more reliable data for the purpose of rule 8.
Issue (i): Whether the expression "more reliable data" in rule 8 of the Schedule to the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was confined to the higher of the two computations under rules 2(a) and 2(b).
Analysis: Rule 8 was treated as a provision directed to the British Indian branch of a non-resident insurance company, and the expression "more reliable data" was construed as referring to the figures or materials from which income could be computed, not to the completed computation itself. The comparison contemplated by rule 8 was therefore between sources of data, not between the results of the computational methods in rule 2. The structure of the Schedule also showed that rule 8 was an independent rule addressing status and branch assessment, rather than a mere fallback to rule 2.
Conclusion: The expression "more reliable data" was not confined to the higher of the two computations under rules 2(a) and 2(b); the answer was in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the separate actuarial valuation statement for the Indian business constituted more reliable data for the purpose of rule 8.
Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the consolidated statement of Indian fund, representing the separate actuarial valuation of the Indian business, furnished the most dependable material for computing the profits of the British Indian branch. No other superior data was shown. In that setting, the actuarial statement was treated as the proper basis for assessment under rule 8.
Conclusion: The separate actuarial valuation statement for the Indian business did constitute more reliable data for rule 8, and the answer was in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that rule 8 applied to the non-resident insurer's British Indian branch and that the Indian actuarial statement furnished the proper material for assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: For a non-resident insurance company's British Indian branch, rule 8 is an independent mode of assessment, and "more reliable data" refers to the underlying figures or material available for computation, not to the comparative results of rule 2 calculations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
