9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty levied by the Revenue against the respondent/assessee. 2. For the sake of convenience we have taken up these appeals together as the parties are concerned and that the appeals are in respect of different assessment orders. 3. I. T. A. No. 80 of 2004 pertains to the assessment year 1992-93, I. T. A. No. 75 of 2004 pertains to the assessment year 1993-94, I. T. A. No. 74 of 2004 pertains to the assessment year 1994-95, I. T. A. No. 76 of 2004 per-tains to the assessment year 1995-96, I. T. A. No. 78 of 2004 pertains to the assessment year 1996-97, I. T. A. No. 77 of 2004 pertains to the assessment year 1997-98 and I. T. A. No. 79 of 2004 pertains to the assessment year 1998-99. 4. Though in these appeals no substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that it has deducted the tax at source based on the salary disbursed by it and it was not required to deduct tax said to have been made by the Japanese company to its employees which fact was not known to the assessee and therefore, it was not liable to pay the penalty as called upon by the Revenue. 7. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention on the ground that when-ever an employee has been deputed from Japan to India under a technical collaboration agreement, the payment payable by the foreign company to its employees would be known to the assessee (Indian company). There-fore, the assessee was required to deduct the tax at source in regard to the payment made by the foreign company to its employees. Accordingly, the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal having considered the pro-visions of section 192 and having held that no payment has been made by the Indian company to the employees of the Japanese company held that it was not liable to deduct the tax at source in respect of the payment made by the foreign company. 10. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed challenging the legality and correctness of the order in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the present appeal is filed. 11. The main contention of the Revenue before us is that the respondent company being an Indian company having a share with the Japanese com-pany and having secured the employees of the Japanese company to know the tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company to its employees outside India. 14. It is not in dispute that the respondent/assessee had paid salary to the employees who have been deputed from a foreign company. Section 192 envisages the assessee to deduct the tax at source in respect of the pay-ments made by it to the employees. 15. Sub-section (1) of section 192 of the Income-tax Act reads as under : "Any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head `Salaries' shall at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on the amount payable at the average rate of income-tax computed on the basis of the rates in force for the financial year in which the pay-ment is made, on the estimated income of the assessee under this head for that financial year." 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
