9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80R of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Reworking of receipts by the Assessing Officer after allowing certain indirect expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80R The primary issue in these appeals is the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80R by the assessees, who are Ayurvedic doctors. The assessees claimed deductions for the income earned from foreign sources, arguing that they fulfilled the conditions stipulated under section 80R. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claims, stating that the assessees did not qualify as professors, teachers, or research workers in any university, institution, association, or body established outside India. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the foreign remittances were primarily for promoting health products and consultancy, which did not qualify under section 80R. The Tribunal examined the conditions under section 80R, which include: - The individual must be a citizen of India. - The remuneration must be received outside India from a university, educational institution, or any association or body established outside India. - The services must be rendered outside India in the capacity of a professor, teacher, or research worker. The Tribunal found that the assessees met the first four conditions. The key issue was whether the services were rendered in the capacity of a professor, teacher, or research worker. The Tribunal concluded that the assessees' activities of conducting workshops, lectures, and training in pulse reading and Ayurveda qualified them as teachers or research workers. The remuneration received was for teaching assignments and consultancy in pulse reading, satisfying the conditions under section 80R. The Tribunal also noted that the assessees had been allowed similar deductions in previous years. 2. Reworking of Receipts by the Assessing Officer The second issue involved the Assessing Officer's reworking of the receipts by allocating indirect expenses proportionately. The assessees had already reduced foreign travel and other expenses from their gross receipts. The Assessing Officer further allocated other expenses like salary, telephone, and depreciation proportionately to the foreign receipts, reducing the deduction amount. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's reworking, agreeing that other expenses should be proportionately allocated towards earning the foreign remuneration. Thus, the computation made by the Assessing Officer was upheld, but the Tribunal directed the allowance of the deduction under section 80R as claimed by the assessees. Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 80R, affirming that the assessees' activities qualified them for the deduction. However, the reworking of receipts by proportionately allocating other expenses was upheld.
|
