9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid any tax in UK. The UK Tax Return as filed by the assessee has been placed. Upon perusal it could be seen that the assessee s net earnings are 27042. After grossing-up for tax, the same aggregates to 30677. The assessee has paid tax of 3635. The certificate of residence has been placed. Upon perusal of the same, it is quite clear that the assessee is resident of UK during the period 06-04-2019 to 05-04-2020. Therefore, lower authorities have erred in noting that the assessee has not paid any taxes in UK. Though the tax may have been paid / reimbursed by the employer, nevertheless, the assessee has offered income on gross basis and subjected to tax in UK. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is to be allowed. Thus, we direct Ld. AO to exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sident of UK and a NR of India merely because the salary income has been received in India. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in not granting benefit of exemption claimed by the Appellant under Article 16(1) of India-UK Treaty on the ground that the salary received from OFSS is not offered to tax in UK. While holding so, the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that there is no condition in Article 16(1) of India-UK Treaty that in order to claim Treaty exemption in India, it will be dependent upon taxability of salary income in UK. In any case, the Appellant has duly submitted the copy of UK tax return before the AO, wherein this salary paid by OFSS has been offered to tax in UK. 5. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of his case. Also, the Ld. AO is erred in not considering the judicial precedents mentioned during the course of proceedings/ submissions, where the facts involved were identical to the facts of Appellant's case. 9. That the Ld. AO has erred in levying the interest under section 234D amounting to INR 83,771 in the Assessment Order. Accordingly, levy of interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to INR 83,771 is bad in law and void-ab-initio. 10. That the Ld. AO has further erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. The Appellant prays for any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise. The Appellant may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry income would be taxable in India. Finally, considering Article 16 of India-UK Tax Treaty as well as the provisions of Sec.5(2), Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and brought to tax entire salary of Rs. 39.47 Lacs while computing the income of the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the same on the ground that this expenditure was claimed by OFSSL and as per Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), no remittance tax was paid by the assessee in UK. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. It is quite clear that the assessee is non-resident during impugned assessment year. The substantial salary has been received by the assessee for international assignment to UK. The prime observation of lower authorities is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd that this salary, for work performed in UK, has been offered to tax in UK which is evident from Tax Returns filed in UK. The assessee submit the as per Article 16(1) of DTAA, this income would be taxable in UK only. Alternatively, the assessee relies on the provisions of Sec.15 read with Sec.5(2) and Sec.9(1)(ii) which provides for taxability of salary on accrual basis and not on receipt basis. However, Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee would not be eligible for the benefit of DTAA since DTAA relief is to be given by resident country which is UK in the present case. 6. We find that an identical issue has been addressed by coordinate bench of Chennai Tribunal in Shri Paul Xavier Antonysamy V/s ITO (ITA No.2233/Chny/2018 dated 28.02.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81-HC-2017) as well as CBDT Circular No.13/2017 dated 11/04/2017. 7. We find that facts are pari-materia the same before us and the ratio of this decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, we would hold that salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India. However, the salary received for work performed in India would be taxable in India. Accordingly, we direct Ld. AO to re-compute the income of the assessee. The above proposition is also supported by the fact that upon perusal of UK tax return, it could be seen that the assessee has offered earnings from employment for 24184 on net basis which has been tax grossed up for 6046. This is in view of the fact that OFSSL has pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
