TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces Pvt. Ltd. and also received salary from the company in India which establishes the employee-employer relationship. Since the salary is received in India and the assessee is on the pay rolls of Indian employer. Therefore, applicability of deeming provisions of section 9(1)(ii) of the Act will not apply once salary received in India is squarely covered by section 5(2) of the I.T.Act 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that income earned by the assessee as salary from Indian employer is not taxable in India. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in observing the fact that on reading of Article 15 with Article 25 of the DTAA between India and Singapore implies that DTAA relief, if any has to be given is by the resident country. The assessee is resident of Singapore and being non- resident in India, the assessee is not eligible for relief under Article 15 of DTAA between India and Singapore in India. As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is taxability of foreign salary earned by the assessee during the year. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 20 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aty benefit. The assessee also pointed out that its stay in India during this year was less than 60 days and therefore, it qualified to be non-resident during this year. In other words, the assessee qualifies to be resident of Singapore as per Article 4(1) of DTAA which was evidenced by tax residency certificate (TRC) issued by the Singapore tax Authorities. The copy of the same was also furnished during appellate proceedings. In the said background, the assessee submitted that as per Article 15(1), the salary so received would be taxable in Singapore only. The assessee also referred to the provisions of Sec.90 which provide an option to be governed by more beneficial provisions. Another factor brought to the notice was that the salary was received in India from Indian entity for administrative convenience only. The salary cost was cross-charged by Indian entity to Singapore entity. 5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee's submissions and allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as under: - 5.1 However, as seen from the facts emanating from the record and the evidence submitted by the appellant: (a) The appellant is a tax resident in Singapore as per the TRC issued b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 6. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee was employed with Indian entity but sent on a foreign assignment. Thought the salary has been received in India for administrative reasons, the employment has been exercised in Singapore only. The assessee is non-resident in India and resident of Singapore which is evidenced by Tax Residency certificates as furnished by the assessee. It is also the submission that this income has already been offered to tax in Singapore and the assessee has paid taxes thereon. It has further been stated that no credit of Tax paid in India has been taken in Singapore. On these facts, the assessee, in our considered opinion, would be entitled for the benefit of Article 15 of relevant DTAA which provides that the salary would be taxable in the country wherein the employment is exercised. The same would be subject to verification by Ld. AO that this income has already been offered to tax in Singapore and the assessee has paid due taxes thereon. The Ld. AO would also verify that no credit of Taxes paid in India has been taken by assessee in Singapore. The corresponding grounds stand dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gn tax credit relief for taxes paid on doubly taxed income which was not the case in that appeal. In para-7, the bench found the issue to be covered in assessee's favor by various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in DIT V/s Prahlad Vijendra Rao (198 Taxman 551); decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Avtar Singh Wadhawan (247 ITR 260); decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Sumanabandyopadhyay V/s DDIT (TS- 281-HC-2017) as well as CBDT Circular No.13/2017 dated 11/04/2017. 7. We find that facts are pari-materia the same before us and the ratio of this decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, we would hold that salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India. However, the salary received for work performed in India would be taxable in India. Accordingly, we direct Ld. AO to re-compute the income of the assessee. The above proposition is also supported by the fact that upon perusal of UK tax return, it could be seen that the assessee has offered earnings from employment for GBP24184 on net basis which has been tax grossed up for GBP6046. This is in view of ....