2000 (12) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... U. K., vide their letter dated December 4, 1991, at a monthly remuneration of 600 pounds sterling. The petitioner sought permission of the Reserve Bank of India which is at pages 22 to 25 of the paper book. The petitioner filed the tax returns for the assessment year 1993-94 where the assessment order at page 28 of the paper book was passed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act before the appropriate authority. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Direct Taxes, is the appropriate authority. The Joint Secretary vide his letter dated September 4, 1996, took the view that the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the petitioner before the appropriate authority under section 80RRA of the Act for approval of terms and conditions in column 11, the petitioner has indicated the status in which he was employed under both columns "01" as well as "02", i.e., employee as well as advisor, whereas in the application filed before the appropriate authority which has been filed by learned counsel for the Revenue along with the counter affidavit, the petitioner has only indicated against column "02" as an advisor. Mr. Jolly has taken the same objection which was put forth before the Supreme Court in Aditya V. Birla's case [1988] 170 ITR 137 that section 80RRA of the Act was inserted only to encourage salaried employees who were going abroad where the cost of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] 2 3 5 ITR 769 the Division Bench of this court in paragraph 13 has held as under: "In CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla [1988] 170 ITR 137 (SC), the approval under section 80RRA was denied to the respondent by the tax authorities on the ground that according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the status of the respondent was that of a 'consultant' and not of an 'employee'. It was submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the provision should be confined to deduction to be given only in the case of the remuneration given to an employee and not to fees paid to a consultant or a technician. Their Lordships rejected the contention as not acceptable." Relying on Aditya V. Birla's case [1988] 170 ITR 137 (SC), the Division Bench of this co....