9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of income earned in India under section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Classification of living allowance as part of salary under section 17 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Determination of rent-free accommodation as a perquisite under section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act. Issue 1: Interpretation of income earned in India under section 9(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act: The case involved a foreign technician working in India who received salary in foreign currency abroad. The Income-tax Officer assessed the total income, which was contested by the assessee claiming exemption from tax. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considering the living allowance and rent-free accommodation. The court referred to previous judgments, including CIT v. H. Fink, where it was held that certain components like retention remuneration and living allowance were not considered as income earned in India under section 9(1)(ii). Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the income computable under the head 'Salaries' had not been earned in India as per the Act. Issue 2: Classification of living allowance as part of salary under section 17 of the Income-tax Act: The Tribunal had to decide whether the living allowance formed part of the salary under section 17 of the Income-tax Act and was exempt from tax. Citing the case of CIT v. S. G. Pgnatale, the court emphasized that the living allowance was provided as a reimbursement rather than a personal advantage, hence not constituting a "perquisite." Referring to the earlier judgment in CIT v. H. Fink, the court reiterated that living allowance cannot be considered a personal advantage and therefore would not be taxable. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the living allowance did not form part of the salary under section 17 of the Act. Issue 3: Determination of rent-free accommodation as a perquisite under section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act: The final issue revolved around whether the value of rent-free accommodation would constitute a perquisite under section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act. The court analyzed the employer-employee relationship and the nature of the accommodation provided. It was established that the rent-free accommodation was offered by the employer to the employee who was deputed to India, and hence, it did not fall under the category of perquisites taxable under section 17(2). Drawing from the precedent set in previous cases, the court concluded that the rent-free accommodation did not qualify as a perquisite under the Act. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the value of rent-free accommodation would not constitute a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act. ---
|
