9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 830 - HC - Income TaxEmployee on deputation - computation of total salary paid as provided in Section 195A - income tax liability on the salary received by the appellant from the consultant company - whether salary and the tax portions were paid by the foreign consultant Snc-Shawinigan as evidenced by clause 1.9.1 clearly indicated that the tax portion was to be borne by KSEB? - liability to bear the tax burden - Held that - As decided in HORACE DANSEREAU TRIVANDRUM VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I (1)TRIVANDRUM 2017 (12) TMI 1066 - KERALA HIGH COURT question of law raised has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee on a different reasoning than that given by the Tribunal. In many of the assessment orders the computation has not been properly made. The Assessing Officer would hence employ Section 195A and compute the amounts properly within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The assessee are said to have paid up the amounts already. Only if there is a balance due the same would have to be satisfied by the assessee or its agent - Decided in favour of revenue.
Issues:
1. Tax treatment of income from other sources and salary under Section 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation of contractual obligations regarding tax liability between parties. 3. Applicability of Section 195A in determining tax liability. Issue 1: Tax Treatment of Income from Other Sources and Salary under Section 195A: The petitioner, an employee deputed by an overseas Consultant, had his income returned in India and the tax component paid by KSEB was shown as "income from other sources." The Assessing Officer added this tax component to the salary paid, computed the total salary as per Section 195A, determined tax, and demanded the balance from the assesses. The first Appellate Authority, relying on a precedent, directed the tax paid by KSEB to be taxed as "income from other sources." The Tribunal, however, upheld the order of the Assessing Authority, leading to an appeal. Issue 2: Interpretation of Contractual Obligations Regarding Tax Liability: The questions raised revolve around the contractual obligations between the parties regarding tax liability. The issues include whether the KSEB was liable to bear the income tax on the salary received by the appellant, and if the tax portion was to be borne by KSEB as indicated in the contract. The contradictions in the clauses of the contract were also examined to determine the party responsible for the tax burden. The judgment referred to a previous case where the Court upheld the assessment order based on different reasoning from that of the Tribunal, ultimately ruling in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 195A in Determining Tax Liability: The judgment addressed whether the provisions of Section 195A were applicable to the case in question and if there was a necessity for grossing up the appellant's income to determine tax liability. The Court referred to a previous judgment where it was decided that the Assessing Officer should compute the amounts properly within a specified period and assess any balance due from the assessee or its agent. The questions raised in this case were answered against the assessee, with the appeal being rejected and directions given for proper computation as per the earlier judgment. In conclusion, the judgment delved into the tax treatment of income from other sources and salary under Section 195A, the interpretation of contractual obligations regarding tax liability between parties, and the applicability of Section 195A in determining tax liability. The Court's decision favored the revenue and directed proper computation of amounts within a specified period, ultimately rejecting the appeal and providing no order as to costs.
|
