TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pan) is not a perquisite in the hands of the Assessee under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the answer to this is in the negative whether the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided by Section 10(14) of the Act? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the salary earned by the Assessee was taxable as salary for the entire year under consideration?" 2. The assessee individual was a permanent resident of Japan and during the year the tenure and consideration, he was employed by M/s. Suzuki Motors Corporation (Japan). By virtue of a collaboration agreement between M/s. Suzuki Motors, Japan and M/s. Maruti Udhyog Ltd., India the assessee was deputed to India to offer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As a result both the assessee and the Revenue preferred the appeals to the ITAT. The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal pertaining to inclusion of amount paid as daily allowance and also the rented accommodation. The reasoning adopted by the ITAT was that in terms of Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 6(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee was a person "not ordinarily resident" in India and that the salary earned in Japan for employment under Suzuki Motors Corporattion cannot be assessed in his hands in the assessment made in India. The Tribunal also rejected the contention of the revenue based on Article 15 on the ground that on a proper interpretati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant DTAA applies. Since in the present case, the provisions of Section 6(6) read with Section (5)(1)(c) and Section 9(1)(i) of the Act were beneficial to the assessee as explained by the learned counsel for the assessee, the same should have been preferred by the authorities below over DTAA and the income earned by the assessee outside India during the year under consideration ought to have been held to be not taxable in India as per the said provisions. We are, therefore, of the view that the income of the assessee earned in India alone was taxable in his hands in India and the income earned by him outside India was not taxable in India as rightly claimed. In that view of the matter, we reverse the impugned order of learned CIT (A) on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee. It is pertinent to note here that nothing has been brought on record either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT (A) to dispute this position even by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT (A) to dispute this position even though submission to this effect was made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT (A) in the statement of facts filed alongwith the appeal. Even the learned DR has not been able to controvert this assertion made by the assessee and there being nothing available on record to show that the amount of daily allowance paid by MUL to SMC for the stay of the assessee in India was actually received by the assessee from SMC, we are of the view that this addition ....