COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ESTIENNE ANDRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are applications of the Revenue under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ("Act"). The facts and circumstances and the proposed question are identical in all these applications. In fact, the Tribunal has disposed of all the applications under S. 256(1) by a common order. We have, therefore, taken up these applications for hearing together. The question of law proposed to be referred to this Court for opinion is as under :

(2.) WE have heard Mr. R.V. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard Mr. D.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Vyas submitted that the proposed question is wrongly framed as it gives an impression that the services were rendered in India, whereas, there is a categorical findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the services were rendered in France. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Vyas to art. XIV(1) of the DTAA between India and France which reads as under :

(3.) IN view of art. XIV(1) of the DTAA, sub s. (2) of S. 90 of the Act and the categorical finding of the Tribunal that the remuneration in question was for the services rendered in France, we are of the clear opinion that the proposed question is not a referable question of law.