9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount paid abroad to the Italian company by the Fertilizer Corporation of India could be treated as the assessee's salary income liable to be taxed in India. 2. Whether the daily allowance paid to the assessee was exempt from tax under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether there could be grossing up of income on a tax basis and if the sum treated as a perquisite was taxable in the hands of the assessee. 4. Whether the value of the perquisite should be limited to the amount of tax actually paid during the relevant previous year. 5. Whether the assessee was liable to be taxed in India. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Salary Income Liability The Tribunal held that the amount paid abroad to the Italian company by the Fertilizer Corporation of India for the deputation of the assessee was considered the assessee's salary income. The Tribunal concluded that the payment on account of the services of the foreign technicians was in fact the salary for services rendered in India. Thus, the assessee had earned income under the head "Salary," and it was immaterial whether he was paid salary pursuant to an agreement between the Corporation and his Italian employers. Issue 2: Daily Allowance Exemption The Tribunal was justified in holding that the daily allowance of Rs. 70 per day paid to the assessee was not exempt from tax under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the assessment, confirming that the daily allowance was part of the taxable income. Issue 3: Grossing Up of Income and Perquisites The Tribunal held that the Corporation had agreed to pay and bear the tax on the salary of all foreign personnel deputed in the project if exemption from tax could not be obtained. Therefore, the Corporation effectively agreed to pay a tax-free salary. Following the decision in Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal justified the grossing up of the salary of the assessee. However, the High Court found that the agreement between the Corporation and Ansaldo did not stipulate a tax-free salary for the assessee. The High Court concluded that the tax paid by the employer must fulfill the characteristics of a perquisite as laid down in section 17 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and must be paid before it can be treated as part of the salary. Since the tax liability was to be borne by the Corporation at a future date, it could not be treated as a perquisite paid in the relevant assessment year. Issue 4: Limitation of Perquisite Value The High Court held that the value of the perquisite should be limited to the amount of tax actually paid during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal's decision to gross up the salary was rejected, as there was no agreement that the assessee would be paid a tax-free salary by the employer. Issue 5: Tax Liability in India The High Court observed that the relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the assessee had not been established. The certificate issued by the Corporation did not specifically state that the assessee was an employee of the Corporation. Therefore, it was concluded that the assessee was not liable to be taxed in India based on the facts and circumstances presented. Conclusion: The High Court answered questions 3 and 4 in the negative and in favor of the assessee, concluding that there could be no grossing up of income on a tax basis and that the value of the perquisite should be limited to the amount of tax actually paid during the relevant previous year. The relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the assessee was not established, and therefore, the assessee was not liable to be taxed in India for the relevant assessment year.
|
