9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1985-86, assessee made a claim under s. 80-O which has been considered by the Assessing Officer. For the asst. yr. 1984-85, the claim to the tune of Rs. 25,952 disallowed under s. 80-O is in dispute before us. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Prabhakar Mehrotra has restricted the claim of the assessee to Rs. 20,952. For the asst. yr. 1984-85, the total deduction claimed was Rs. 3,22,854 which was calculated as under: "Total receipts from Bangaladesh Rs. Rs. Technical Services. . 3,62,625 Less: Outgoings: . . (a) Travelling expenses on foreign operation (Bangaladesh) (See P L A/c). 36,996 . (b) Extra allowance paid to staff stationed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries, could not be considered as an expenditure incurred in connection with providing technical services in a foreign country. The learned counsel further pointed out that special allowances granted to the employees has been specifically taken into consideration as an expenditure and that and it is only with respect to the regular salaries paid to such employees which is claimed to be excluded from the expenditure on account of providing technical know how to a foreign country. Upto 31st March, 1981, before the insertion of s. 80AB, the deduction permissible was with reference to the gross amount of relevant income and not the net income. W.e.f1st April, 1981, s. 80AB was incorporated which provides that for purposes of computing the deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of this, the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee appellant on account of salaries paid to the staff deputed toBangladeshfor both the assessment years. The appeals of the assessee for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 are accordingly dismissed. 3. Now we will deal the appeal filed by the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1984-85. 4. The first ground of appeal to allowance of Rs. 6,000 pertaining to retainership account. A sum of Rs. 3,000 paid to Shri Prabhakar Mehrotra and a similar amount paid to Shri P.D. Garg was disallowed by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 80VV. The CIT(A), following his orders for the earlier years allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that retainership fee paid to the C.As. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in computting the profits from such project. Since Shri K.B. Pillai was posted for part of the year in connection with the foreign project, the salary paid to him during that part of the year was attributable to the foreign project. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that Shri K.B. Pillai would have been paid his salary even if he was not deputed to Jordon in connection with the foreign project and accordingly his salary is not to be taken into consideration for computing the profits does not appeal to us. Shri K.B. Pillai had rendered services in Jordon in connection with the foreign project. As already stated Shri K.B. Pillai has been paid salaries for rendering services to the company inIndiaand in foreign country. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
