1979 (8) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder of the Commissioner was also wrong and illegal and could not be upheld ? " The assessee is a company. The reference relates to the assessment year 1947-48. At the time of completing the original assessment no double I.T. relief was allowed on account of income which had suffered tax both in India and in other countries. Subsequently, by an order dated January 31, 1950, double I.T. relief was given for income doubly assessed both in Ceylon and in India. On August 6, 1951, double I.T. relief was given in the U.K. and in India. The assessee's claim for abatement under the Agreement for avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan was not finalised. The assessee made such a claim in 1950. By an order dated September 15, 1964....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the 'Indian rate of tax' and, consequently, the net amount of relief due to the assessee as a result of the comprehensive working of the Pakistan Abatement and Double Income-tax Relief." Mr. B. L. Pal, learned counsel for the Revenue, argues before us and, in our opinion, rightly, that the main question for our consideration is whether any decision of the ITO on the claim of the assessee regarding the abatement under the above agreement calls for " a comprehensive working of the Pakistan Abatement and Double Income-tax Relief " as observed by the Commissioner. This question, takes us immediately to the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation with Pakistan. Under art. IV of the Agreement each Dom....