Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. The assessee is M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Madras. The assessee-company is wholly owned by the Government of India. While computing the total income for the asst. yr. 1982-83 for which the accounting year ended on 31st December, 1991, the IAC (Asst.) included a sum of Rs. 2, 39, 166, representing the tax deducted at source by the foreign Governments out of dividends and interest on the ground that the assessee disclosed the net dividend and net interest in its P&L a/c submitted to the Controller of Insurance. (a) On the assessee's appeal, the CIT(A) held that the tax deducted at source by the foreign Government should not be deemed to be the income of the assessee and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Y. N. S. Hobbs and on the decision of the Tribunal, C-Bench Madras in the case of ITO vs. Dr. Raja Sir M. A. Muthiah Chettiar in ITA 953/Mds/1981, dt. 29th Jan, 1982. (b) On the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal following the order in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and also the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Y. N. S. Hobbs (supra), upheld the order of the CIT(A). (c) It is on these facts, the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the question of law as below under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court, "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that only the net dividend and net interest income arising from foreign countries after deducting tax deducted at source by the foreign Government should be brought to tax ?" Arguments of Mr. R. Sivaraman, learned counsel, representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel and of Mrs. R. Sivaraman, learned counsel, representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel and of Mrs. Asha Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel representing M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent were heardNo doubt true it is, that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, following the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Y. N. S. Hobbs (supra) held that the tax deducted at source by the foreign Government should not be deemed to be the income of the assessee and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was rather unfortunate that at the time, while the Tribunal decided the issue, the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Clive Insurance Co. Ltd. was not brought to its notice. If that decision of the Supreme Court had been cited before the Tribunal, cock-sure it is, we rather feel that the Tribunal would not have followed the ratio laid down by the Kerala High Court in the case of Y. N. S. Hobbs (supra). Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of A. F. W. Low vs. CIT. (a) In that case, their Lordships of a Division Bench of this Court said that prior to the U.K. Finance Act, 1965, amounts deducted by way of tax from the dividends distributed by companies incorporated in the U.K. at the standard rates were allowed to be retained by the companies, but after 1965, the amounts had to be paid over to the Inland Revenue. Under the U.K. IT Act, 1952, there is no provision to the effect that amounts deducted from dividend income of a member constituted payment of income-tax by the member. Provision is made under s. 91(1) of the IT Act, 1961, corresponding to s. 49D of the Indian IT Act, 1922, to make available to the assessee double income-tax relief, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements in that regard. Having regard to s. 91 providing for double income-tax relief, the gross dividend alone should be regarded as having accrued or arisen or even received by the assessee. Having regard to s. 91 providing for double income-tax relief, the gross dividend alone should be regarded as having accrued or arisen or even received by the assessee. While so laying down the dictum the Division Bench of this Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Clive Insurance Company Ltd. (supra);On the face of a Division Bench decision of this Court, which relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court as stated above, it goes without saying that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that only the net dividend and net interest income arising from foreign countries after deducting tax deducted at source by the foreign Government should be brought to tax and this question is answered accordingly. This tax case is thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.