2018 (9) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ticularly the status of the respondent/assessee. 4. Having perused the order under Appeal, we are unable to agree with Mr.Pinto. The Tribunal had before it the entire factual conspectus. The respondent/gentleman before the Tribunal and before us has been serving in 'M/S Morgan Stanley International (Inc)' of the USA. He was on deputation to India. He filed return of income for Assessment Year 2003- 2004 on 19th October 2004, claiming the status of a 'Resident', but 'not ordinarily resident' within the meaning of Section 6 sub-section 6 clause (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He offered the salary earned in India to the extent of Rs. 3,23,23,506/- to tax. He offered further income under the head 'Short Term Cap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct to the order of the Commissioner, but when the assessee asked for rectification of that order to exclude double addition, the Assessing Officer surprisingly passed another order dated 24th February 2009 deleting the entire amount. 9. It is in these circumstances that the records were again summoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax and he returned the finding that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Not only the salary, but his perquisites also should be brought to tax was the view of the Commissioner. 10. The aggrieved assessee approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal considered both issues in the backdrop of the peculiar facts and in para 9 came to the conclus....