https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63288 The Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, ruling that the technician was entitled to exemption under section 10(6)(viia) for being employed by a foreign company in India. The approval for extension beyond 24 months had been granted before the relevant assessment year, covering both periods. The Tribunal found no basis for grossing up the technician's salary, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Department's appeal was dismissed, and the decision in favor of the assessee was upheld. en-us Mon, 31 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Jan 2011 09:45:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63288 The Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, ruling that the technician was entitled to exemption under section 10(6)(viia) for being employed by a foreign company in India. The approval for extension beyond 24 months had been granted before the relevant assessment year, covering both periods. The Tribunal found no basis for grossing up the technician's salary, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Department's appeal was dismissed, and the decision in favor of the assessee was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 31 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63288