1964 Supreme(Mad) 501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice K. Srinivasan and Mr. Justice T. Venkatadri
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Versus
R. Venugopala Reddiar, Srirangam
T.C. No. 282 of 1962. (Ref. No. 147 of 1962).
Decided On : 28 December 1964
V. Balasubrahmaniam, Special Counsel for Income-tax, on behalf of Applicant.
K. Srinivasan, D. Meenakshisundaram and R. Gangadharan, for Respondent.
Income from property /houses situated in Burma.
Headnote:Income Tax Act, 1922-Section 9(2), third proviso-Municipality Tax for the houses situated in Burma paid to local authority-Held, in relation to house property situated outside India local authority is the authority in relation to house property.
On the application of the Department, the question that stands referred to us is:
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the municipal taxes paid to a local authority in Burma could be allowed in computing income from house properties in Burma under section 9 of the Income-tax Act ? "
Section 9 of the Income-tax Act deals with the mode of computation of the income from property. Broadly stated, the tax in respect of such income shall be payable by an assessee "in respect of the bona fide annual value of the property". Certain allowances are indicated in the various sub-clauses of section 9(1). Subclause (iv) further provides that where the property is subject to an annual charge not being a capital charge, the amount of such charge should be deducted. What an annual charge meant in the context was the subject of a difference of opinion among the several High Courts. The question was set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in New Piece Goods Bazaar Company, Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax1. It was decided herein that municipal taxes paid under the Bombay Municipal Act and the urban immovable property tax paid under the Bombay Finance Act would come with the scope of the expression ‘an annual charge not being a capital charge ‘and that the words ‘annual charge ‘meant ‘a charge to secure an annual liability’. As a result of this decision, the Legislature amended section 9 of the Income-tax Act and put in an Explanation for the purpose of clause (iv) of the relevant sub-section. This explanation lays down that the expression ‘annual charge' does not include any tax in respect of property or income from property levied by a local authority or a State Government or the Central Government.
Under sub-section (2) of section 9, however, the Legislature provided for the