1. N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.---The following common question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for our consideration: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's decision that income from Malaysia cannot be subjected to tax in India is in accordance with the agreement for avoidance of double taxation of income and prevention of fiscal evasion of tax, entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia (Notification No.G.S.R. 167(E), dated April 1, 1977 (see (1977) 107 ITR (St.) 36)?"
2. Mr. C.V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Department has fairly submitted that the issue raised in this case is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. VR. S.R.M. Firm (1994) 208 ITR 400, wherein this Court held that the income derived from the rubber estates in Malaysia could not be included in the total income of the assessee and assessed to tax in India under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee need not maintain a separate establishment in India in respect of the rubber estates, in view of the agreement for avoidance of double taxation 'entered into between the Governments of India and Malaysia.
3. The decision of this Court reported in CIT v. V.R. S.M. Firm (1994) 208 ITR 400 would squarely apply to the facts of this case as well. Following the said decision, we answer the common question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs. .