1984 (10) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s reference arises under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), in connection with the income-tax assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee is a company. The, company secured the services of one Mr. Larner with the approval of the Central Government as a foreign technician subject to the provisions contained in section 10(6)(vii-a) of the Act. The Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10(6)(vii-a). Accordingly, the assessee-company was under an obligation to pay the tax on the salary paid to Mr. Larner in excess of the sum of Rs. 4,000 per month. There is no dispute that the assessee-company paid the required tax on the sum paid in excess of the amount exempt under section 10(6)(vii-a). The Revenue claims that in respect of the sum in excess of Rs. 4,000 which is not exempt as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee is not liable to charging of interest under section 201(lA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?" We fail to see how the provisions of section 192 of the Act come into operation at all in this case, when admittedly the sum paid to Mr. Larner is not chargeable as income from salary in his hands. It is not the Revenue's case th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e payment of interest under section 201(lA) of the Act do not also equally arise. The whole claim of the Revenue is based on a misapprehension that the tax which ought to be paid by Mr. Larner was paid by the assessee-company and such tax ought to have been deducted at source at the time of payment to Mr. Larner. The facts do not, however, support this claim of the Revenue inasmuch as the Central ....