9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 424 - AT - Income TaxResidential Status of the assessee. - Held that - assessee has not furnished any evidence to show that he was abroad during the relevant period in connection with or for purposes of the present employment. Even before us, no material has been laid by the assessee to negate aforesaid assertion of the CIT(A). Under these circumstances, in our view, the assessee qualifies to be a resident in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration on the basis of the tests mentioned in section 6(1)(c) read with Explanation (a) thereof. - Decided against Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Status of the assessee (Resident or Non-Resident). 2. Taxability of salary income under section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Status of the Assessee: The primary issue was whether the assessee qualified as a 'Non-Resident' for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee, employed as a Master of the ship with Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd., claimed 'Non-Resident' status based on his stay outside India for 201 days, as evidenced by his Passport. The Assessing Officer, however, determined the assessee's status as 'Resident' based on information from the employer indicating that the assessee was abroad for only 158 days, which was less than the 182 days specified in section 6(1) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that the tests provided in section 6(1) are alternative and not cumulative. The assessee had been in India for more than 365 days in the preceding four years and more than 60 days during the relevant year. The Commissioner found that the assessee did not meet the criteria under Explanation (a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act, which requires a stay outside India for 182 days or more for employment purposes. The certificate from the employer confirmed only 158 days of stay abroad, thus affirming the 'Resident' status. The Tribunal also affirmed this decision, noting that while the Passport indicated 201 days abroad, there was no evidence showing that the additional days were spent as a member of the crew or for employment purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the specific wording in Explanation (a) to section 6(1)(c), which the assessee failed to satisfy. 2. Taxability of Salary Income: The second issue was whether the salary income earned by the assessee was taxable in India under section 5(2) of the Act. The assessee claimed that the salary received for services rendered outside India should be exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer disagreed, noting that the salary was paid by an Indian company and was for services rendered in India, thus taxable under section 5(2). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) supported this view, stating that even if the assessee were considered a 'Non-Resident,' the salary income would still be taxable in India. The Commissioner explained that under section 5(2), income received or accrued in India is taxable, and the employment contract was enforceable in India. The Commissioner cited the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai (TM) in 81 ITD 203, which held that salary accruing in India is taxable regardless of the non-resident status. The Tribunal upheld this conclusion, noting that the employment contract was entered into in India, and the salary accrued in India. Therefore, the salary was taxable in India, regardless of where the services were rendered. The Tribunal also distinguished the present case from the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Prahlad Vijendra Rao, where the assessee was a non-resident and the salary earned abroad was not taxable in India. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the 'Resident' status of the assessee and the taxability of the salary income in India under section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
