2011 (3) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal which held that the salary income of the respondent was not liable for tax in India. 2. The assessee was an individual. For the relevant assessment years he was a non-resident. He was employed with a foreign company engaged in the management of crew and vessels, namely, M/s. Eurasia International (L) Ltd. presently known as Bernhard Schulte Ship Management having its office at Hongkong. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ipping Company, Eurasia and that his income had accrued outside India and was also received outside India on board the ships belonging to the said Hong Kong Shipping Company and as the income had not arisen within India, he was not liable to pay tax under the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the application and held that the income fell under the purview of section 5(2) of the Act for the reaso .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... account of the assessee in India. The Tribunal followed its order in ITA 1137(B)/2008 that the salary accrued outside India could not be taxed in India merely because it was received in India. In fact, they also took note of the Judgment of the Calcutta Bench in the case of Ranjit Kumar Bose  v. ITO [1986] 18 ITD 230. 3. In the instant case, though the assessee was an Indian, at the relevant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X