Dr.Rajiv I.Modi, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,(OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1285/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8541 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Double taxation relief; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 90

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1285/AHD/2014 DR RAJIV I MODI VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND RAJPAL YADAV JM] ITA NO.1285/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DR. RAJIV I. MODI .............APPELLANT CADILA CORPORATE CAMPUS, SARKHEJ-DHOLKA ROAD, BHAT AHMEDABAD 382 210 [PAN: ACGPM 3768 F] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) .......................RESPONDENT RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY: URVASHI SHODHAN FOR THE APPELLANT VK SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 19.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 21.09.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLAN T AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II, AHM EDABAD IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 1 [DCIT] [AO] OF DENYING THE MARY LAND STATE TAX CREDIT OF RS.533,372 IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE CONTENTIO N THAT SUCH TAXES ARE NOT COVERED WITHIN ARTICLE 2 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVO IDANCE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN INDIA AND USA. 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONOURABLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO OF NOT ALLOWING CREDIT FOR MARYLAND STATE TAX ON THE CONTE NTION THAT SUCH CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN ABSENCE OF ANY REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR CLAIMING SUCH TAX CREDIT. ITA NO. 1285/AHD/2014 DR RAJIV I MODI VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 6 3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE, THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS AS WELL AS RELIEF IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAX AS WELL. 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIA L FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS A DIRECTOR IN A PHAR MACEUTICAL COMPANY, AND, OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.92,77,648/- EARNED BY HIM DU RING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM A USA BASED ENTITY AGGREGA TE TO RS.62,10,947/-. IT IS IN RESPECT OF THIS SALARY EARNING FROM USA THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS PAID STATE INCOME-TAX AGGREGATING TO RS.5,33,372/- IN THE USA. THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED A CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME SO PAID IN COMPUTATION OF HIS TAX LIABILITY IN INDIA. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CLAIM SO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CAME UP FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMEN T COVERS ONLY FEDERAL INCOME- TAX IMPOSED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES IN USA. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) VERY FAIRLY NOTED THAT THERE IS A DECISION ON THE SAME I SSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THEN HE DECLINED TO FOL LOW THE SAID DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES. IN OTHER WORDS, MERELY BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL DECISION HAS BEEN CHALL ENGED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, LD. CIT(A) DECLINED TO FOLLOW THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLIC ABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER STATE TAXES ON INCOME PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE USA ARE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX CREDIT IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA . THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TATA SONS LTD VS. DCIT [(20 11) 10 TAXMANN.COM 87 (MUM)], SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF US, I.E. AM, HAS DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE TAX PAYER. WHILE DOING SO, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 3. IN THE ORIGINAL HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PR ESSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL SEEKING CREDIT IN RESPECT OF STATE INCOME TAX PAID IN UNITED STATES, BUT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME UNDER SECT ION 37(1). THE REASON, FOR NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, WAS STATED TO B E THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTENT WITH CIT(A)S HAVING GRANTED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THESE TAXES, AS THE CLAIM FOR TAX CREDIT WAS ANYWAY NOT ADMISSIB LE IN TERMS OF THE INDO US TAX TREATY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO IN APPEA L BEFORE US IN RESPECT OF THE DEDUCTION HAVING BEEN GRANTED BY THE CIT(A). FO R THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT IN OUR ORDER DATED 24T H NOVEMBER, 2010, WE UPH ELD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HELD THAT DEDUCTIONS IN RESPE CT OF ANY INCOME TAX PAID ABROAD, WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL, WERE NOT ADMISSIB LE. ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE US WAS THAT AT LEAST DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF US AND CANADA STATE INCOME TAXES SHOULD BE ALLOWED, SINCE THE US AND CA NADA STATE INCOME TAX PAYMENTS DID NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO ANY TAX CR EDIT, AND EITHER AN INCOME TAX PAYMENT IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION OR IT IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR GIVING TAX CREDIT. WE WERE ALSO TAKEN THROUGH THE P ROVISIONS OF INDIA-USA AGREEMENT FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND PREV ENTION OF FISCAL EVASION [ 187 ITR (STATUTE) 102 - HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS INDO US TAX ITA NO. 1285/AHD/2014 DR RAJIV I MODI VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 6 TREATY], TO SHOW THAT THE TAX CREDITS UNDER THE IND IA US TAX TREATY ARE RESTRICTED TO CREDITS IN RESPECT OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID IN THE UNITED STATES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE INDIA CANADA DOUBLE T AXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT, TAX CREDITS ARE ADMISSIBLE ONLY IN RESPE CT OF TAX PAID UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT OF CANADA WHEREAS STATE INCOME TAX ES ARE LEVIED UNDER SEPARATE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIONS. IT COULD NOT, ACC ORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, RESULT IN A SITUATION IN WHICH AN INCOME TAX PAYMEN T CANNOT HAVE ANY TAX IMPLICATION NEITHER AS A CHARGE ON INCOME, NOR AS AN ALLOCATION OF INCOME. WHILE REJECTING THESE ARGUMENTS, AND ALLOWING THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAD, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 20. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IN ANY EVENT, WE MUST ALLOW DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF STATE INCOME-TAXES PA ID IN USA AND CANADA AS RELIEF IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT OF TH E SAME IN RESPECTIVE TAX TREATIES. WE HAVE BEEN TAKEN THROUGH INDIA USA TAX TREATY TO POINT OUT THAT TAX CREDITS ARE ADMISSIBLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF INCOME-TAX LEVIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT BY THE STATE GOVE RNMENTS. IT IS CONTENDED THAT SINCE NO RELIEF IS ADMISSIBLE IN RES PECT OF STATE TAXES UNDER SECTION 90 OR SECTION 91, THESE TAXES WILL CO NTINUE TO BE TAX DEDUCTIBLE, AND TO THAT EXTENT, DECISIONS OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCHES WILL HOLD GOOD. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS IN THIS SUBMISSION EITHER. APART FROM THE FACT THAT SUCH A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN LUBRIZOL INDIA LTD.S CASE (SUPRA), THERE IS ANOTHER INDEPENDENT REASON TO REJECT THIS CLAIM AS WELL. THE REASON IS THIS. IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT TAX TREATIES OVERRIDE THE PROVISION S OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX TREATIES ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, A PERSO N CANNOT BE WORSE OFF VISA-VIS THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, EVEN WHEN A TAX TREATY APPLIES IN HIS CASE. SECTION 90(2) STATES THAT EVEN IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM A TAX TREATY APPLIES THE PROVISIO NS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THA T ASSESSEE. UNDOUBTEDLY, TITLE OF SECTION 91 AS ALSO REFERENCE TO THE COUNTRIES WITH WHICH INDIA HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT, SUGGESTS TH AT IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CASES WHERE INDIA HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT WITH RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION, B UT THE SCHEME OF THE SECTION 91, READ ALONGWITH SECTION 90, DOES NOT REFLECT ANY SUCH LIMITATION, AND SECTION 91 IS THUS REQUIRED TO BE T REATED AS GENERAL IN APPLICATION. THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ENTIRETY IN A HOLISTIC MANNER, AND EACH OF THE SECT ION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ON STANDALONE BASIS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT SO FAR AS SECTION 91 IS CONCERNED, IT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN TAXES LEVIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS AND TAXES L EVIED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE INCOME-TAX LEVIED BY DIFFERENT STAT ES IN USA USUALLY RANGES FROM 3 PER CENT TO 11 PER CENT, AND THE AGGR EGATE INCOME-TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN USA WILL RANGE FROM 38 PER CENT TO 46 PER CENT. THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND BEA RING IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL INCOMETAX IN USA AT THE RELEVANT P OINT OF TIME WAS LESSER IN RATE AT 35 PER CENT VIS-AVIS 38.5 PER CEN T INCOME-TAX RATE APPLICABLE IN INDIA, THE ADMISSIBLE DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 1285/AHD/2014 DR RAJIV I MODI VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 6 91 WILL BE HIGHER THAN RELIEF UNDER THE TAX TREATY. IT WILL BE SO FOR THE REASON THAT STATE INCOME-TAX WILL ALSO BE ADDED TO INCOME-TAX ABROAD, AND THE AGGREGATE OF TAXES SO PAID WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX RELIEF - OF COURSE SUBJECT TO TAX RATE ON WHICH SUCH INCOME IS ACTUALLY TAXED IN INDIA. THE TAX RELIEF UNDER SECTION 91 THUS WORKS O UT TO AT LEAST 38 PER CENT, AS AGAINST TAX CREDIT OF ONLY 35 PER CENT ADM ISSIBLE UNDER THE TAX TREATY. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE E NTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 91 IN RESPECT OF FEDERAL AS WELL AS STATE T AXES, AND THAT RELIEF BEING MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE VIS-A-VIS TAX CREDIT UNDER THE APPLICABLE TAX TREATY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 91 WILL APPLY TO STATE INCOME-TAXES AS WELL. THE STATE INCOME-TAX IS ALSO, THEREFORE, COVERED BY EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 40(A)(II), AND DEDUCTIO N CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. FINALLY, IN VIEW OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN S. INDER SINGH GILLS CASE (SUPRA), INC OME-TAX ABROAD CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THIS JUDGMENT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE TAXES EITHER. INTERESTINGLY, STATE INCOME-TAXES PAID IN USA, SUBJ ECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, ARE DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTATION OF INCOM E FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY IN USA, BUT THAT FA CTOR CANNOT INFLUENCE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THESE TAXES, PARTICULARLY IN THE L IGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 40(A)(II) AND IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN S. INDER SINGH GILLS CASE (SUPRA), IN COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME UNDER INDIAN INCOME- TAX ACT. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING DEDUCTION OF AT LEAST STATE INCOME-TAX PAID IN USA. 4. HAVING SO HELD THAT DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF STAT E INCOME TAX PAID IS NOT ADMISSIBLE, WHEN WE TOOK UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE AND NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GRIEVANCE AGAINST TAX CRED IT IN RESPECT OF STATE INCOME TAX PAID IN USA AND CANADA, FOR THE STATED R EASON THAT THE SAME IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF THE INDO US AND INDO CAN ADA TAX TREATY PROVISIONS, WE DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO ONCE AGAIN HEAR THE PAR TIES ON THIS ISSUE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS INDEED AN INCONGRUOUS POSITI ON THAT PAYMENT OF STATE INCOME TAXES IN US AND CANADA ARE NOT ALLOWED DEDUC TION AS THESE ARE TREATED AS IN THE NATURE OF TAXES ON INCOME, IN TER MS OF THE PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC TAX LAW IN INDIA, AND THESE PAYMENTS ARE A LSO NOT BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR GRANTING CREDIT FOR TAXES PAID ABROAD B Y THE ASSESSEE, AS ONLY FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS ELIGIBLE FOR TAX CREDIT IN TE RMS OF THE INDO US AND INDO CANADA TAX TREATY. IF THIS APPROACH IS ADOPTED, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET A DEDUCTION FOR STATE TAXES SO PAID ABROAD, NOR DOES HE GET THE TAX CREDIT FOR THE SAME, AND IF THESE TWO PROPOSITIONS ARE CORRECT, TH ERE IS CLEARLY AN INHERENT CONTRADICTION IN THESE PROPOSITIONS ON TAX TREATMEN T FOR STATE INCOME TAXES PAID ABROAD. THERE CANNOT OBVIOUSLY BE A TAX PAYMEN T WHICH IS NEITHER TREATED AS ADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE, BECAUSE IT IS TR EATED AS AN INCOME TAX, NOR IS IT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR TAX CREDITS, BECAUSE I T IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS INCOME TAX. HOWEVER, AS WE HAVE OBSERVED IN OUR ORD ER ON THE CROSS APPEAL, EXTRACTS FROM WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, IT IS INCORRECT TO PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT STATE INCOME TAX PAID IN USA, OR FOR THAT PURPOSE PAID IN CANADA, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUN T FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING ADMISSIBLE TAX CREDITS. IT IS SO FOR THE ELEMENTARY REASON THAT THE ITA NO. 1285/AHD/2014 DR RAJIV I MODI VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 5 OF 6 PROVISIONS OF A TAX TREATY, BASED ON WHICH TAX CRED ITS ARE SAID TO BE INADMISSIBLE, CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE TO DEC LINE A BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO HIM, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A TAX TREATY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. EVEN AS WE HAVE HELD THAT, IN PRINCIPLE, STATE I NCOME TAXES PAID IN USA ARE ELIGIBLE FOR BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPO SE OF COMPUTING ADMISSIBLE TAX CREDIT UNDER SECTION 91, WE ARE ALIVE TO THE FA CT THAT SECTION 91 REFERS TO A SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX IN AN Y COUNTRY WITH WHICH THERE IS NO AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 90 FOR THE RELIEF OR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THAT THERE IS INDEED AN AGREEMENT UND ER SECTION 90 WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS ALSO WITH CANADA. IF WE ADOPT A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS PROVISION, AND BEARING IN MIND THE UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT TAX CREDIT PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 91 ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE TAX CREDIT PROVISIONS IN RELATED TAX TREATIES INASM UCH AS WHILE SECTION 91 PERMITS CREDIT FOR ALL INCOME TAXES PAID ABROAD W HETHER STATE OR FEDERAL, RELEVANT TAX TREATIES PERMIT CREDITS IN RESPECT OF ONLY FEDERAL TAXES, IT WILL RESULT IN A SITUATION THAT AN ASSESSEE WILL BE WORSE OFF A S A RESULT OF THE PROVISIONS OF TAX TREATIES. THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UND ER THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. CIRCULAR 621 DATED 19-12-1991 [(1992) 195 ITR (STATUTES) 154] ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 119(2) OF THE ACT, INTER ALIA , OBSERVES THAT SINCE THE TAX TREATIES ARE INTENDED TO GRANT RELIE F AND NOT PUT RESIDENTS OF A CONTRACTING STATE AT A DISADVANTAGE VIS-A-VIS OTHER TAXPAYERS, SECTION 90 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED TO CLARIFY ANY BENEFICIAL PROVISION IN THE LAW WILL NOT BE DENIED TO A RESIDENT OF A CONTRACTI NG COUNTRY MERELY BECAUSE CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN A TAX TREATY IS LESS BEN EFICIAL. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, HOWEVER, TAX CREDIT PROVISIONS IN INDO US TAX T REATY ARE ADMITTEDLY LESS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT JUST BECAUSE THER E IS A TAX TREATY BETWEEN INDIA AND USA, THE BENEFITS OF THE DOMESTIC LAW PRO VISIONS ARE BEING DECLINED TO THE ASSESSEE. THAT IS AN INTERPRETATION WHICH LE ADS TO ABSURDITY AND CALLS FOR AN INTERPRETATION HARMONIOUS WITH THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN CASE OF ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT WOULD PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AS IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 90(2) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHERE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS ENT ERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA FO R GRANTING RELIEF OF TAX, OR FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION, THEN IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM SUCH AGREEMENT APPLIES, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT S HALL APPLY TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THAT ASSESSEE MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ACT GETS MODIFIED IN REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS THE AGREEMENT IS CONCERNED IF IT FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY STATED THEREIN. IT WOU LD THUS APPEAR THAT THE TREATY OVERRIDE IS ONLY RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT IT IS BEN EFICIAL TO A TAXPAYER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FACT THAT A TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED TO MAKE A PARTICULAR CLAIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TAX TREATY PROVISIONS, DOES NOT D ISENTITLE HIM TO MAKE THE CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, AND FURTHER TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US IN OUR O RDER ON THE CROSS APPEAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9 1 ARE TO BE TREATED AS GENERAL IN APPLICATION AND THESE PROVISIONS CAN YIE LD TO THE TREATY PROVISIONS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE; ITA NO. 1285/AHD/2014 DR RAJIV I MODI VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAGE 6 OF 6 THAT IS NOT THE CASE SO FAR AS QUESTION OF TAX CRED ITS IN RESPECT OF STATE INCOME TAXES PAID IN USA ARE CONCERNED. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE SCOPE OF INDIA US AND INDIA CANADA T AX TREATIES, SO FAR AS TAX CREDITS IN RESPECT OF TAXES PAID IN THESE COUNTRIES ARE CONCERNED, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 91, BEING BENEFICIAL TO THE A SSESSEE, HOLD THE FIELD. AS SECTION 91 DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL TAXES, AND IN EFFECT PROVIDES FOR BOTH THESE TYPES OF INCOME TAXE S TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAX CREDITS AGAINST INDIAN INCOM E TAX LIABILITY, THE ASSESSEE IS, IN PRINCIPLE, ENTITLED TO TAX CREDITS IN RESPEC T OF THE SAME. OF COURSE, AS IS THE SCHEME OF TAX CREDIT ENVISAGED IN SECTION 91, T AX CREDIT IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN INCOME TAX IS RESTRICTED TO ACTUAL INCOME T AX LIABILITY IN INDIA, IN RESPECT OF INCOME ON WHICH TAXES HAVE BEEN SO PAID ABROAD. 6. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE CONCERNED CIT(A) HAS DECL INED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL EVEN THOUGH HE WAS FULLY AWARE OF T HE SAME. MERELY BECAUSE A JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IS CHALLENGED IN FURTHER APPEAL, THE PRECEDENCE VALUE OF SUCH A JUDICIAL PRECEDENT DOES NOT GET DILUTED. THE STAND OF THE CIT(A), IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF A BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, CANNOT B UT BE CONDEMNED. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN ANY EVENT, WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE ANY OTH ER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CREDIT F OR THE STATE TAX PAID IN THE USA. THIS IS, HOWEVER, SUBJECT TO THE RIDER THAT THE CRE DIT FOR ALL TAXES PAID ABROAD IN ANY CASE CANNOT EXCEED THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE SAME INCOME. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER WILL VERIFY THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE MATTER STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GRANTING ADMISSIBLE RELIEF, I F ANY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- RAJPAL YADAV PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD