CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar

267 ITR 654Supreme Court of India2004#1342 most cited

What is CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar authority for?

This case established a principle regarding the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) versus domestic tax law, particularly concerning the use of more beneficial provisions for an assessee, though its specific impact has been nullified by subsequent legal amendments.

85

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar · 267 ITR 654 · Section 90(3) · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · DTAA benefits · tax treaty override · beneficial provision · subsequent legal amendments · Azadi Bachao Andolan

Sections most often in play

Section 234BSection 143(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 163
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 65b(4)section 163section 276section 43dsection 36(2)(v)section 41(4)azadi bachao andolansection 153b(1)house property incomesection 43b(f)

Judgments citing CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7756/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6769/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6767/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6744/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6743/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3627/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3626/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3625/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3624/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3623/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 3368/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…, Volume 3.2): In this case, the court interpreted the word 'may be taxed' as a prohibition or embargo upon the authorities' exercising powers under the Act and it can't be read as an enabling form of language. 3.10. CIT v. P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar, (2004) 267 ITR 654, (Supreme Court), 26.05.2004, Supreme Court of India, (Relevant para: Para 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, Page 469-481 of case law compendium, Volume 3.2): dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the above decisions of Madras High Court & Karnataka high Court. 3.11. In Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), [2003] 263 I…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 158/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…ase are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar Vs. CIT 267 ITR 654 (SC). The A.O has held that the income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo branches would be included in the return of income as it is basic tenet that for a resident in India the global income is taxable in India. The AO has also relied upon CBDT notification under section 90(3) in S No ITA Nos.155 to 158/Chny/2023 :- 3 -: 2123(E) dated…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 157/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…ase are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar Vs. CIT 267 ITR 654 (SC). The A.O has held that the income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo branches would be included in the return of income as it is basic tenet that for a resident in India the global income is taxable in India. The AO has also relied upon CBDT notification under section 90(3) in S No ITA Nos.155 to 158/Chny/2023 :- 3 -: 2123(E) dated…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 156/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…ase are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar Vs. CIT 267 ITR 654 (SC). The A.O has held that the income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo branches would be included in the return of income as it is basic tenet that for a resident in India the global income is taxable in India. The AO has also relied upon CBDT notification under section 90(3) in S No ITA Nos.155 to 158/Chny/2023 :- 3 -: 2123(E) dated…

Indian Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 155/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.155, 156, 157 & 158/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A ./For Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 90Section 90(3)

…ase are that the assessee bank has branches at Singapore and Colombo, outside India and claimed the income from foreign branches as exempt from taxes in India relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar Vs. CIT 267 ITR 654 (SC). The A.O has held that the income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo branches would be included in the return of income as it is basic tenet that for a resident in India the global income is taxable in India. The AO has also relied upon CBDT notification under section 90(3) in S No ITA Nos.155 to 158/Chny/2023 :- 3 -: 2123(E) dated…

Smt. Irvind Kaur Gujral, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

…s of the related tax treaty. Having so set out the correct position from an academic point of view, we may hasten to add that there is indeed a judicial precedent from Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar [2004] 137 Taxman 460/267 ITR 654 (SC)], which touches a different chord, but then, in the light of subsequent legal amendments, the impact of this judicial precedent stands nullified. What is thus correct on the first principles and as per the text books, is also the binding legal position. 6. When we put our above understanding to the learned counsel in the beginning of hearing…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…Government to define any term which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the tax treaty. As the Supreme Court has already interpreted the meaning of the phrase „may be taxed‟ in the case of CIT v/s. PAVL Kulandagan Chettiar [267 ITR 654], the notification cannot give a meaning to „may be taxed‟ which is inconsistent with the views of the Supreme Court. State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 The Notification cannot survive as it directly contradicts the judgment of the Supreme Court. 98. Without prejudiceto the above argument made was thateven if it held…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…Government to define any term which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the tax treaty. As the Supreme Court has already interpreted the meaning of the phrase „may be taxed‟ in the case of CIT v/s. PAVL Kulandagan Chettiar [267 ITR 654], the notification cannot give a meaning to „may be taxed‟ which is inconsistent with the views of the Supreme Court. State Bank of India ITA no.3645/Mum./2016 ITA no.4564/Mum./2016 The Notification cannot survive as it directly contradicts the judgment of the Supreme Court. 98. Without prejudiceto the above argument made was thateven if it held…

Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 90

…d by the parliament. 2.13 As regards the legal position that the provisions of the DTAA shall always supersede the provisions of the ITA, attention is drawn towards the below mentioned judicial precedents: - Supreme Court • P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar [2004] 267 ITR 654 (SC) 7 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. It was also held that in case of any conflict between the provisions of the DTAA and the ITA, the provision of the DTAA would prevail over the provisions of the ITA as is clear from the provisions of Section 90(2). • Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 70 (SC), It was held that the provisions of DTAA, with r…

Prasanth Nandanuru, Hyderabad vs. ITO, (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 5(2)(a)Section 5(2)(b)Section 90

…f tax chargeable under the Act, the provisions of sections 4 and 5 would be subject to the terms of INDO-UK DTAA. Reliance was placed on the cases of Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) and CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar [2004] 267 ITR 654 (SC) to argue that tax could be deducted at source only when income was chargeable to tax in India; that if the income was not chargeable in India, the provisions of deduction of tax at source would not apply. According to them, Chapter XVII dealing with deduction of tax at source, provided for 'Collection and Recovery of Tax'. Chargeability to t…