9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not an employee of the Indian firm but the employee of the Italian firm and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was in employment with the Indian firm for the business carried on with the said firm. Thus, exemption under section 10(6)(viia) was not available - Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the exemption under section 10(6)(viia) is available. - - - - - Dated:- 7-2-2005 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., G. P. SRIVASTAVA. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for opinion to this court. "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia.' In my opinion the appellant would not be entitled to it for two reasons. In the first instance the word 'of has been used for the employment of the technicians by the concerned employer, i.e., of the Government or a local authority or any corporation or any such institution and hence the words in any business would not be in conformity with the reading of the section. Secondly, as per the appellant's own claim while dealing with the first objection where the entire income was claimed to be exempt, it has been claimed on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant was not an employee of M/s. J.K. Synthetics; it was claimed that the appellant was an employee of M/s. Technimont of Italy and he was rendering services in India on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent-assessee. Learned standing counsel submitted that according to the own case of the respondent-assessee he was not in employment of M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., therefore, no benefit of exemption as provided under section 10(6)(viia) of the Act is available. Sri R.S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, submitted that as the respondent was deputed to perform the contractual obligation entered into between the Italian firm and M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., he would be deemed to be in employment of the Indian firm and, therefore, entitled for exemption under section 10(6)(viia) of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that under section 10(6)(viia) exemption is available to a person wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
