TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of salary income of Rs..63,20,835/- claimed under Article 15(1) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ["DTAA" in short] between India and China and (ii) confirmation of disallowance of rental income from house property. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 28.07.2011 admitting total income of Rs..7,20,911/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] dated 11.09.2012 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated 12.11.2013 was also issued and served on the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y virtue of his employment with Ford India, the assessee was rendering the service in China. The assessee has received salary for services rendered outside India, the services are utilised by the Indian company for generation of income in India. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the claim of the assessee under Article 15(1) was not in order since as per Article 23 of the DTAA, only Residents are allowed to claim relief under the DTAA and in this case, the assessee is a resident of China and hence not eligible to claim relief under article 15(1). The ld. CIT(A) has also examined by going through the article 15(1) and article 23 of DTAA between India and China and observed that only residents are allowed to claim such rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment year 2008-09, the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal has held that in view of Article 16(1) of the Indo-Philippines DTAA, the salary received by the assessee through KJS India for the employment exercised in Philippines is not taxable in India. By relying on the case law, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly contended that the entire salary income of the assessee is not chargeable to tax in India. 8. We have carefully gone through the above case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and find that all these case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the instant case, the assessee is non-resident Indian resident of China. For the sake of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in a Contracting State mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be deemed to include the tax which would have been payable but for the legal provisions concerning tax reduction exemption or other tax incentives of the Contracting States for the promotion of economic development. 9. In view of the specific condition under Article 23 of the India-China DTAA, the assessee is not eligible to claim relief under article 15(1) since the assessee is non-resident and as per Article 23 of DTAA between India and China allows exemption only to a resident Indian. Under the above facts and circumstances, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, the ground raised by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10.3 We have considered the rival submissions. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the value of the property of Rs..97,29,354/- taken by the Assessing Officer for quantifying the rental income pertains to the 2nd property held by the assessee at Metrozone as against the Medavakkam property, which was purchased at a value of Rs..49,28,000/-. Therefore, considering the area, location, etc., the value of the property taken by the Assessing Officer is more or less double for the Medavakkam property, the rental income worked out by the Assessing Officer should be 50%, as has been rightly claimed by the assessee, which should be accepted. Admittedly, the assessee has not ....