9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted by the ITO in the following terms: "The assessee is an employee in GSFC since years. He was deputed on foreign assignment during the financial year 1979-80 by the said company. As per the agreement for deputation abroad-com-service between GSFC and the assessee, the cost of deputation of the officer abroad, including his living allowances, expenses, etc., were to be borne by M/s Snamprogett at Venezuela. The company had further agreed to continue payment of his normal salary including allowance as applicable from time to time during the period of deputation." 2. He has dealt with the contentions of the assessee in the immediately succeeding para as under: "the legal representative present was requested to state as to why the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detail and also took note of the agreement between the foreign company and the assessee and also took note of the working given before her for quantification of the said sum of Rs. 85,328 for the overtime work done from June, 1979 to January, 1980. She held that the sum actually pertained to the financial year 1979-80 which was relevant to asst. yr. 1980-81. She took note of the position that the assessee was non-resident in that year and that sum earned, therefore, was not taxable in that year. She also took note of cl. (c) of s. 15 and noted that arrears of salary received in a year would be taxable only if the said arrear was taxable in the year to which it pertained. She held that overtime allowance pertained to financial year 1979-80 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related to the financial year 1979-80 which was relevant to asst. yr. 1980-81 and it was earned by the assessee outside India and since in that year the assessee was non-resident, the income was not taxable at all. He supported the view taken by the CIT(A) that even under s. 15(c) it was not taxable in this year. 7. On careful consideration, we find that the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference vide para 2 above. The information specifically asked for by the ITO was in regard to the deduction of tax at source in the United States of America. Obviously, this was a totally irrelevant point and perhaps outrightly absurd. Where is the question of tax being deducted at source in pursuance of the provisions of the IT Act by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
