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, under article III of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Ceylon, the assessee was entitled to exclude the Ceylon income altogether from the Indian assessment or to claim abatement of the full Indian tax attributable to that income, rather than abatement limited to the lower tax payable in Ceylon.
Analysis: Article III permits each country to make assessment in the ordinary way under its own laws. The Schedule does not restrict the power to assess the income in either country; it operates only for determining the amount of abatement. The relevant inquiry is the tax attributable to the common income in each country, and the relief is confined to the lower of the two tax amounts. The assessee's reliance on the agreement as excluding the Ceylon income from Indian assessment was therefore inconsistent with the text and scheme of the agreement.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to exclude the Ceylon income from the Indian assessment or to claim abatement of the full Indian tax on that income; abatement was limited to the lower tax payable in Ceylon, and the answer to the reference was in the affirmative against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the India-Ceylon double taxation agreement, each country may assess income under its own law, and the Schedule serves only to compute relief by allowing abatement limited to the lower tax attributable to the same income in the other country.