C. I. T., WEST BENGAL III, CALCUTTA vs. CAREW & CO. LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2097/1978Supreme Court[1980] 1 S.C.R. 63313 September 1979Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: N.L. UNTWALIA, R.S. PATHAK12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

Carew & Co. Ltd., a resident of India, had income from business and interest on securities in India, manufacturing business in Pakistan, and agricultural properties in Pakistan. For assessment year 1956-57, Indian income was Rs. 2,01,702. Pakistani business profit was Rs. 3,26,368, while agricultural property incurred a loss of Rs. 3,20,839. The Income Tax Officer set off the agricultural loss against the business profit, resulting in a net profit of Rs. 5,529 from Pakistan, and granted double taxation relief on Rs. 1,029 after a statutory deduction of Rs. 4,500. The assessee claimed abatement on the entire Pakistani business profit and set off of the full agricultural loss against total Indian income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the ITO's order. The Appellate Tribunal allowed abatement on the entire Pakistani business profit, treating the agricultural loss as allowable under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the assessee was entitled to relief against double taxation in accordance with the Agreement, leaving out of consideration the figure of agricultural loss of Rs. 3,20,839 incurred in Pakistan. However, this loss had to be taken into account and adjusted against the assessee's profit in India when computing the total income. The Court reasoned that agricultural income from Pakistan was not agricultural income as defined under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and thus not excluded from chargeability under Section 4(3)(viii). Therefore, any profit from such agricultural lands would be taxable in India as income from 'other sources'. Conversely, a loss from such lands must be deducted while computing the total income of a resident assessee in India. The Court clarified that Section 49D(1) of the Act applies when there is no reciprocal arrangement for double taxation relief. In the case of Pakistan, a reciprocal agreement existed, and relief had to be granted under it. The scheme of the Agreement, particularly Article IV, was distinct from Section 49D(1). The Court found the High Court's interpretation of Articles IV and VI of the Agreement to be correct. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was entitled to relief against double taxation in accordance with the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan, considering the agricultural loss incurred in Pakistan. (Mixed law and fact, concerning Sections 49A, 49D(1)(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and Articles IV and VI of the Agreement). Assessee's contentions: - The assessee claimed abatement on the entire profit from its manufacturing business in Pakistan (Rs. 3,26,368). - The assessee claimed set off of the whole agricultural loss (Rs. 3,20,839) against the total income determined in India. - The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to abatement on the entire profit from manufacturing business in Pakistan and that the agricultural loss was allowable under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Revenue's contentions: - The Income Tax Officer initially deducted the agricultural loss against the business profit, granting relief only on the net figure. - The Appellate Assistant Commissioner affirmed the ITO's decision. - The revenue's appeal to the Supreme Court challenged the Tribunal's and High Court's interpretation of the Agreement and the allowability of the agricultural loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(1),Section 4(3)(viii),Section 6(iv),Section 49A,Section 49D(1),Section 49D(3),Section 2(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

... ' ' ) _,,.. '"(" • C. I. T., WEST BENGAL III, CALCUTTA v. CAREW & CO. LTD· September 13, 1979 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 633 Abatement' of tax under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation in India and Pakistan-Set off of loss of income in agricultural properties whether allowable under the Indian Incon1e Tax Act, 1922-Sections 49A, 49D (I) (3) of-Income Tax Act, 1922 read with Articles IV and VI of the AgrP.ement-Scope of .

Respondent, Carew and Co. Ltd., was resident in India having its Registered Office in Calcutta.

During the assessment year 1956-57, for which the corres- ponding previous year ended on June 30, 1955, the sources of the income of the Company \Vere from (a) business in India and interest earned in India on securities; (b) manufacturing business in Pakistan and (c) agricultural properties in Pakistan. For thei relevant year the assessee.).

Indian income as computed by the Income Tax Officer was Rs. 2,01,329 from business and Rs. 373 from interest on securities. The total of the two items was Rs. 2,01,702. The profit from assessee's manufacturing business in Pakistan v.·as computed at Rs. 3,26,368. In respect o

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 4(1)

All 43 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →