Facts of the Case

The respondent-assessee, State Bank of India, acted as the legal successor to the National Bank of Lahore, Ltd. During the statutory evaluation for the Assessment Year 1966-67, the Income-tax Officer levied a tax demand of ₹2,51,197/- under the head "Capital Gains" on the sale of certain immovable properties situated in Pakistan. The assessee strongly objected to this assessment, contending that under the bilateral "Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation" executed between the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan in 1947, capital gains arising from the transfer of immovable assets were exclusively taxable in the dominion where the assets were situated.

The Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) rejected the assessee's plea and maintained the tax demand. On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed these findings, relying on Entry No. 6 of the Schedule to the Agreement. The Tribunal held that since the Agreement allocated 100% taxing rights to the dominion where the capital asset is situated (Pakistan) and "Nil" to the other (India), the income was fundamentally immune to Indian taxation, making it entirely immaterial whether Pakistan had actually levied any tax on those gains or not. Aggrieved by this reasoning, the Revenue moved a reference application before the High Court.

Issues Involved

  • Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the capital gains arising from the sale of capital assets in Pakistan were automatically non-taxable in India, completely irrespective of whether they were subjected to tax in Pakistan or not for the Assessment Year 1966-67?
  • What is the true operational scope of Articles IV, V, and VI read with the Schedule of the 1947 Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement? Does it restrict the statutory power of an Indian authority to compute and assess global income, or does it merely regulate the subsequent retention of collected taxes via an abatement framework?

Petitioner’s (Revenue's) Arguments

The Revenue, through its learned counsel, contended that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had completely misconstrued and lost sight of the true import and legal design of the Avoidance Agreement. The Revenue argued that the existence of a tax avoidance treaty does not strip Indian authorities of their sovereign right to make assessments under domestic tax laws. It was forcefully submitted that it is absolutely material to verify whether the property in question was actually subjected to tax under the heading "Capital Gains" in Pakistan. In the absence of an official certificate of assessment demonstrating foreign tax exposure, the absolute tax abatement claimed by the assessee cannot be validly operationalized or allowed.

Respondent’s (Assessee's) Arguments

There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee despite being duly served with notice. However, as recorded in the lower proceedings, the assessee’s primary stance rested on the explicit language of Entry No. 6 of the Schedule to the Agreement. The entry specifies that for capital gains arising from the sale, exchange, or transfer of an immovable capital asset, 100 percent of the taxing right belongs to the dominion where the asset is situated, and "Nil" by the other. Based on this text, the assessee maintained that India had zero tax jurisdiction over the transaction, rendering the actual tax implementation by Pakistan entirely inconsequential to the case.

Court Order / Findings

The Hon’ble High Court answered the referred question in the negative, delivering its ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

The Court observed that under the opening mandate of Article IV of the Agreement, each Dominion is explicitly authorized to make tax assessments in the ordinary way under its own domestic laws, regardless of the Agreement's existence. The restriction imposed by the treaty is not on the statutory power of assessment, but purely on the liberty to retain the tax so assessed.

According to the procedural mechanics of Article VI(b), if the tax payable in the other Dominion is unknown at the time of assessment, the Indian authority must finalize the assessment and issue a demand without granting immediate abatement. The collection of the estimated abatement amount is then held in abeyance for a period of one year. If the assessee produces an official certificate of assessment from Pakistan within that timeframe, the uncollected portion is appropriately adjusted against the permissible abatement. If no such certificate is produced, the abatement automatically ceases to be operative, and the outstanding demand must be collected forthwith. Consequently, the Tribunal's view that actual taxation in Pakistan was irrelevant was declared legally untenable, and the Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the quantum afresh in line with this legal position.

Important Clarification

The High Court relied heavily on landmark Supreme Court precedents to clarify the operational boundaries of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements:

  • No Alteration of Domestic Statutes: Citing C.I.T. v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (1986), the Court clarified that an avoidance agreement cannot be construed as modifying, superseding, or overriding domestic tax laws during the assessment process. The income must first be determined in the normal way under Indian law, including the consequential determination of tax liability.
  • Apportionment for Abatement, Not Total Exclusion: Citing Ramesh R. Saraiya v. C.I.T. (1965), the Court reaffirmed that the Schedule to the agreement is designed to allocate and apportion income between the two dominions strictly for calculating tax credits and abatements. It does not act as an automatic bar to stop the income from being evaluated under domestic assessment machinery.

Sections Involved

  • Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Statutory provision governing references to the High Court).
  • Section 49AA of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Corresponding old provisions empowering the Central Government to enter into bilateral agreements for the avoidance of double taxation).

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2000:DHC:13047-DB/62912122000ITR2121980_144230.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.