9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30/3/1999. (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that tax borne by the employee is not part of the pay? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that notional interest on interest free deposit made for accommodation is not part of perquisite of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd paid tax there on the said income at Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Since the assessee had received Rs. 77.00 lakhs in India and the tax payable thereon was Rs. 35.00 lakhs which was to be reimbursed by the employer, the assessee had included Rs. 35.00 lakhs to the salary income of Rs. 77.00 lakhs and offered Rs. 113.00 lakhs (round figure) to tax. Though tax on Rs. 113.00 lakhs at Rs. 50.00 lakhs was paid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared by the assessee. The Tribunal has further recorded that though the assessee had paid tax amounting to Rs. 50.00 lakhs, the assessee was entitled to reimbursement of tax amounting to Rs.35.00 lakhs and the balance Rs. 15.00 lakhs was borne out of the salary income received by the assessee in India. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the confusion has arisen, because, the assessee in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. Accordingly the first question cannot be entertained.
6. As regards the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Court in the case of M.A.E. Paes v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 60. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
