https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120806 The Tribunal upheld the Assistant CIT's jurisdiction under section 163 to treat the company as an agent of non-residents. It found that privity of contract was not necessary for such determination. The Tribunal also ruled that reimbursement of traveling expenses to non-residents constituted taxable income. While salary and perquisites provided to non-residents were deemed taxable, the Tribunal exempted actual travel expenses under section 10(14). The Tribunal dismissed appeals on section 163 orders but partially allowed appeals on section 143(3) assessments by excluding air travel expenses from taxable income. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:25:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120806 The Tribunal upheld the Assistant CIT's jurisdiction under section 163 to treat the company as an agent of non-residents. It found that privity of contract was not necessary for such determination. The Tribunal also ruled that reimbursement of traveling expenses to non-residents constituted taxable income. While salary and perquisites provided to non-residents were deemed taxable, the Tribunal exempted actual travel expenses under section 10(14). The Tribunal dismissed appeals on section 163 orders but partially allowed appeals on section 143(3) assessments by excluding air travel expenses from taxable income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120806