Case Commentary: CIT v. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar [(2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC)

Abstract

What are double taxation avoidance agreements? What are the principles of interpretation that are followed to interpret the double taxation avoidance agreements? What is the legislative intent behind Section 90 and Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961? How does the Tax Credit Method of double taxation avoidance differ from the Exemption Method? Apart from dealing with these principal questions, this research paper deals with a brief analytical analysis of case laws in the nature of,1. Turquoise Investments Case [300 ITR 1]2. Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. Case [292 ITR 416]3. C.I.T v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust [(1983) 144 ITR 146 (A.P.)]4. Vodafone Case [341 ITR 1 (SC)] 5. C.I.T v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. [291 ITR 482]6. Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax, Mumbai [288 ITR 408]7. Azadi Bachao Andolan Case [263 ITR 706]8. Kulandagan Chettiar Case [267 ITR 654]9. A.H.M Allaudin v. Additional ITO [(1964) 52 ITR 900 (Mad.)]10. C.I.T v. Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. [(1994) 77 Taxman 450 (Cal.)]