TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in IT(TP)A No.23/Bang/2015 (M/s.Rambus Chip Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax) for A.Y.2009-10. 2. This appeal has been admitted on 20.09.2017 to consider the following substantial questions of law framed by the learned counsel for the Appellants- Revenue:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the addition made by the assessing authority in respect of amount of income-tax of Rs. 14,85,677/- paid by the assessee-company on behalf of an expatriate employee Mr. Prakash Bare when the tax payment on the salary was liability of the employee and not that of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to its expatriate employee is allowable as business expenditure and at paras.23 to 34 of its order, the Tribunal has held as under: xxxxxxxxxxxx 19. We find that in both the above decisions, it has been held that remuneration and the income-tax thereon paid on behalf of the employee therein, is an allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. In view of the same, we allow the assessee's ground of appeal". 4. From the findings of the learned Tribunal, it is clear that on the Agreement between the Assessee and the Employee Mr.Prakash Bare, contemplates that the income tax liability on the salary to be paid to the employee Mr.Prakash Bare, shall be borne by the company and this contractual liability agreed upon by the assessee is liable for d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion as above. A reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd., vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126; (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) wherein it was held that excise duty was part of the 'consideration'. Another direct decision covering the question is by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Polygraph Machines (P) Ltd. (2001) 171 CTR (Mad) 152 : (2000) 243 ITR 788 (Mad). 13. Before leaving this issue we may say that the words "lump sum" as used before the word "consideration" in s.35AB, only exclude periodical or turnover based payments like royalty etc., and any one time payment for the know-how would fall within the expression "lump sum" if it is fixed and specified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such cases. Had it been a case of substantial question of interpretation of provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Treaties (DTAA), interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act or Overriding Effect of the Treaties over the Domestic Legislations or the questions like Treaty Shopping, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), Transfer of Shares in Tax Havens (like in the case of Vodafone etc.), if based on relevant facts, such substantial questions of law could be raised before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, the Courts could have embarked upon such exercise of framing and answering such substantial question of law. On the other hand, the appeals of the present tenor as to whether the comparables have been rightly picked....