9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there is no such confusion in the order of the Tribunal, as portrayed by the learned standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue. The Tribunal, in para-7 of its order, has clearly stated that consequent to the withdrawal of hypothetical tax payable in US, certain amount has been paid towards tax liability of the assessee in India. Taking into consideration the amount paid towards salary and deducting the hypothetical tax payable in the US,the Tribunal has determined the salary received after deduction made by the employer towards the hypothetical tax. A cursory look at the above calculation made by the Tribunal would reveal that the computation is just and proper and no clarification is required to be given by the Tribunal, as it is for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the amount of ₹ 40,13,145/- from the salary of the assessee as hypothetical tax to be paid in USA. It is accepted by the Department that in lieu of the amount withdrawn as hypothetical tax, the employer/company paid the tax liability of the assessee in India in a sum of ₹ 31,57,915/-. Consequent upon the payment of tax as above in India, there remains certain amount withdrawn by the company of the assessee from the salary, which has not been paid as tax in India, i.e., an amount of ₹ 8,55,320/-. The assessing officer held that the assessee has not paid any federal tax in USA as evidenced by the W-2 furnished by the assessee for the financial year 2008-2009 and, therefore, made appropriate additions in the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une of ₹ 8,55,320/-. A note has been appended by the authorised representative in the analysis of hypothetical tax stating that under the tax equalization policy, this difference of Indian ₹ 8,55,320/- is not eligible to be paid back to the assessee. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, after coming to the conclusion, the formula as to how salary received for the purpose of tax to be determined, remanded the matter back to the assessing officer to verify whether on principles the contention put forth by the representative for the assessee is correct. Aggrieved against the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 5. Mr.Swaminathan, learned standing counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been paid towards tax liability of the assessee in India. Taking into consideration the amount paid towards salary and deducting the hypothetical tax payable in the US,the Tribunal has determined the salary received after deduction made by the employer towards the hypothetical tax. A cursory look at the above calculation made by the Tribunal would reveal that the computation is just and proper and no clarification is required to be given by the Tribunal, as it is for the assessee to explain as to how this amount should be treated for the purpose of determining the tax. 8. In view of the well considered findings given by the Tribunal, as noted above, this Court finds no error warranting interference with the order passed by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
