9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding tax perquisite grossing up on multiple stages and not on a single stage. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding tax perquisite grossing up on multiple stages and not on a single stage: The core issue in these appeals is whether the tax perquisite should be grossed up at multiple stages or a single stage for computing the salary liable to be taxed under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company filed the return of income on behalf of its employee, declaring total income and claiming a refund. The return was processed, and a notice under Section 148 was issued, to which the assessee consented. The company agreed to pay income tax on behalf of the employee, leading to the question of grossing up. The assessee relied on the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. ONGC, arguing against multiple grossing up of tax. The AO distinguished the facts of the current case from the ONGC case, noting that the income in the current case was assessable under the head "salaries" and not under Section 44BB of the Act. The AO also referenced the Delhi High Court decision in Frank Beaton & Anr. vs. CIT & Ors., which supported the method of multiple grossing up. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, distinguishing the current case from the ONGC case and referencing the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. H.D. Dennis & Ors., which supported the inclusion of tax paid by the employer as part of the salary. The CIT(A) also addressed the argument regarding Section 10(10CC), concluding that the tax paid by the employer was a monetary perquisite and not excluded from the total income. The Tribunal referred to its previous order in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04, where the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 195A were not considered in that order. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court decision in Emil Webber vs. CIT, which did not address the issue of single or multiple stage grossing up. The Tribunal examined the agreement between the company and the employee, noting that the company was responsible for paying income tax on behalf of the employee. The Tribunal concluded that the salary should be calculated based on multiple grossing up, distinguishing the facts from the Frank Beaton case. The Tribunal also referenced the Bombay High Court decision in H.D. Dennis, which supported the inclusion of tax paid by the employer as part of the salary. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the salary of the assessee should be calculated on the basis of multiple grossing up. The Tribunal also dismissed all other appeals, noting that the facts were identical to the current case.
|
