TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court was delivered by Markandeya Katju C.J.-This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated May 19, 2000, of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is a chartered accountant providing professional services to foreign clients outside India. He entered into an agreement with Marubeni Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, to provide accountancy and management services for a period of 36 months from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2002. True copy of the said agreement is "annexure P-1"to the writ petition. Clause 3 of the said agreement states as under: "3. Service under this agreement is to be rendered only by communicating in writing and transmitting to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be satisfied for availing of the benefits under section 80RRA is that there shall be services rendered outside India. It is observed that the agreement does not provide for physical presence abroad for work, in your case. Hence your case does not qualify for deduction under section 80RRA and the application is, therefore, rejected. Yours faithfully, (Sd.)........... (C.J. Scaria) Desk Officer (FTD)." Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed representation dated March 20, 2000, vide "annexure P-4"). Para. 1 of the said letter states as under: "1. I have indicated at item 10 of the application that services are to be rendered outside India during the three years period from 1-10-1999 to 30-9-2002. The contract is for Rs. 40 mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs faithfully, (Sd.).......... (C.J. Scaria) Desk Officer (FTD)." By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated May 19, 2000, and the undated order dated March 2000, and for a direction to the respondent to approve the terms and conditions of services with Marubeni Corporation, Japan, for the financial years in question. Before dealing with the contentions of learned counsel for the parries, we may refer to section 80RRA(1) of the Income-tax Act which states as follows: "80RRA.(1) Where the gross total income of an individual who is a citizen of India includes any remuneration received by him in foreign currency from any employer (being a foreign employer or an Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduled to proceed to USA and Canada for more than six weeks in the first week of May, 2000, itself. However, there is a difference between saying that one is scheduled to proceed to a foreign country and saying that one actually was in a foreign country while doing the work in question. The petitioner has only alleged that he was scheduled to go to foreign countries but he has not stated that he actually went to foreign countries and rendered the service in question to the foreign employer while he was physically present outside India. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in A.S. Mani v. Union of India [2003] 264 ITR 5, in which a learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 80RRA of the Act would include service rendered by a person who remains physically in India but the service is for some work which is done outside India. In this connection, we may also refer to Explanation (iii) to section 80-O of the Income-tax Act which states: "services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India shall include services rendered from India but shall not include services in India." The fact that there is no clause in section 80RRA of the Act similar to Explanation (iii) to section 80-O shows that a person cannot get the benefit of section 80RRA of the Act while physically remaining in India. Apart from the above, section 80RRA is attracted only when a person claiming the deduction has received remunera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|