Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest income received by a United States resident company was taxable in India at 15% under the India-USA DTAA and whether charging tax at 20% in the intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 constituted a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under section 154.
Analysis: The applicable treaty provided a 15% rate for the relevant interest income, and under section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the treaty provisions prevailed to the extent they were more beneficial to the assessee. The excess levy at 20% was therefore contrary to the governing legal position and did not require any long-drawn reasoning to detect. The revenue authorities were bound to compute tax in accordance with the Act read with the notified treaty, and they could not rely on the assessee's mistaken computation to deny the correct treaty rate. Such overassessment was treated as an error apparent from the record and capable of rectification under section 154.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to taxation of the interest income at 15%, and the refusal to rectify the intimation was unsustainable. Relief was granted to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a notified double taxation avoidance agreement prescribes a lower tax rate beneficial to the assessee, tax must be computed accordingly, and levy at a higher rate is a mistake apparent from the record liable to rectification.